General Services Administration, Region 3 (Activity/Petitioner) and Federal Employees and Transportation Workers, Local 960, Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), MTC, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2151, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 

 1 FLRA No. 79
 
 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 REGION 3
 Activity/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS,
 LOCAL 960, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
 NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA), MTC, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2151, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case Nos. 22-08858(CA),
                                            11-08681(RA) and 22-08699(CU)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON FEBRUARY 16, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED
 PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE ACTIVITY/PETITIONER HAD NOT ENGAGED IN THE
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDING THAT
 THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.  FURTHER HE FOUND THAT THE
 1974 REORGANIZATION DID NOT MATERIALLY AFFECT THE UNIT IN QUESTION AND
 RECOMMENDED THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE STATUS (RA) PETITION HEREIN AND THE
 CLARIFICATION OF UNIT (CU) PETITION BE DISMISSED.  NO EXCEPTIONS WERE
 FILED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION
 PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 7).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
 THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION
 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY
 HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE
 HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS
 ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE
 SUBJECT CASE, AND NOTING PARTICULARLY THAT NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED, WE
 HEREBY ADOPT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  /1A/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IS IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
 NO. 22-08858(CA) AND THE PETITIONS IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NOS.
 22-08681(RA) AND 22-8699(CU) BE, AND THEY HEREBY ARE, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 5, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    DONALD L. ISAAC, BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE
 
    THOMAS E. CALLOWAY, SR., INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 
    AND TRUSTEE
 
    FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS
 
    LOCAL 960 LIUNA
 
    1030-15TH STREET, N.W.
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
 
                    FOR LABOR ORGANIZATION/COMPLAINANT
 
                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND TRANSPORTATION
 
                         WORKERS, LOCAL 960 LIUNA
 
    EDWARD P. DENNEY, LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS OFFICER
 
    HENRY P. LEIBOWITZ, LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS SPECIALIST
 
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, REGION 3
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20407
 
                          FOR ACTIVITY/PETITIONER
 
    BEFORE:  SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                    DECISION, ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS PROCEEDING ARISES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491,
 AS AMENDED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ORDER).  PURSUANT TO
 REGULATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR LABOR MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS, AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, A NOTICE OF HEARING ON
 COMPLAINT AND A NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION HEARING WERE ISSUED IN THE
 ABOVE NUMBERED CASES ON APRIL 24, 1978.  THE ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
 CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING CASES NUMBERED 22-8858(CA), 22-8681(RA) AND
 22-8699(CU).  FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS, LOCAL 960,
 LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, MTC, AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER
 CALLED LIUNA OR LOCAL 960) FILED THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 22-8858(CA)
 ON MARCH 8, 1978, WHICH ALLEGED THAT GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 REGION 3, (HEREINAFTER CALLED GSA OR ACTIVITY OR PETITIONER) VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1)(3)(5) & (6) OF THE ORDER BY REFUSING TO RENEGOTIATE A
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH LIUNA AND BY OTHERWISE SUPPORTING
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2151, AFL-CIO
 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AFGE LOCAL 2151).  THE PETITIONER FILED THE PETITION
 IN CASE NUMBER 22-8681(RA) ON JANUARY 5, 1978 CONTENDING THAT, DUE TO AN
 ACTIVITY REORGANIZATION, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTED BY
 LIUNA IS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE AND THE PETITION IN CASE NUMBER
 22-8699(CU) ON JANUARY 18, 1978 CONTENDING THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT DISCUSSED ABOVE WERE ACCRETED TO A UNIT
 REPRESENTED BY AFGE LOCAL 2151.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND THE ACTIVITY AND LOCAL 960
 WERE REPRESENTED /1/ AND AFFORDED A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE
 AND CALL, EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND ARGUE ORALLY.  THE
 ACTIVITY AND LOCAL 960 FILED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, /2/ INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF
 THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,
 CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  IN 1968, LOCAL 960 WAS GRANTED EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 10988 FOR A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT OF WAGE GRADE
 EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN THE ACTIVITY'S SPECIAL SERVICES BRANCH (SSB),
 BUILDING OPERATIONS DIVISION, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE (PBS).
 
    2.  BASICALLY THIS UNIT REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 960 CONSISTED OF
 EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN SSB'S CENTRAL, WEST AND VIRGINIA HEATING SECTIONS;
  SSB'S CENTRAL REPAIR SECTION'S GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPE
 ACTIVITY;  AND SSB'S MOVING AND SERVICES SECTION, EXCEPT CARPENTERS,
 GENERAL MECHANICS AND RATING SUPERVISORS.
 
    3.  THE ABOVE DESCRIBED EMPLOYEES IN CENTRAL, WEST AND VIRGINIA
 HEATING SECTIONS WERE, AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN, PHYSICALLY LOCATED
 AT THEIR 3 RESPECTIVE HEATING PLANTS.  THE EMPLOYEES IN MOVING AND
 SERVICES SECTION WERE AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN HEADQUARTERED IN
 BUILDING 137 OF NAVY YARD, EXCEPT FOR A SMALL NUMBER WHO WERE, AT ALL
 TIMES, PERMANENTLY STATIONED IN OTHER BUILDINGS.  THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING ACTIVITY WERE AT TIMES MATERIAL
 HEREIN HEADQUARTERED IN A BUILDING IN THE NAVY YARD.  WHEN THE BUILDING
 WAS DEMOLISHED THE LANDSCAPING EMPLOYEES WERE MOVED TO A PARKING LOT IN
 THE NAVY YARD WHERE THEY REMAINED HEADQUARTERED FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS.
 AS OF 1974 THE EMPLOYEES OF THE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING
 ACTIVITY WAS HEADQUARTERED AT 10 P STREET, N.W., ABOUT FOUR BLOCKS FROM
 NAVY YARD BUILDING 137, AND CERTAIN EQUIPMENT WAS STILL PARKED AND
 STORED IN THE NAVY YARD.
 
    4.  THE ACTIVITY AND LIUNA ENTERED INTO A FULL AND COMPLETE
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT COVERING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED UNIT
 EFFECTIVE MARCH 6, 1973 FOR TWO YEARS AND WITH AUTOMATIC ONE YEAR
 RENEWALS, UNLESS EITHER PARTY GIVES TIMELY NOTICE OF ITS DESIRE TO
 TERMINATE AND RENEGOTIATE THE AGREEMENT.
 
    5.  ON FEBRUARY 7, 1974 THE ACTIVITY UNDERWENT A REORGANIZATION,
 INCLUDING PBS.  PART OF THE REORGANIZATION OF PBS ABOLISHED SSB AND THE
 EMPLOYEES OF SSB WERE ASSIGNED TO NEW PBS ORGANIZATIONS.  AS PART OF THE
 REORGANIZATION THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CENTRAL REPAIR SECTION (GROUND
 MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING ACTIVITY) AND THE MOVING AND SERVICES
 SECTION WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW CENTRAL SUPPORT FIELD OFFICE, WITH
 THE MOVING FORCE REMAINING IN BUILDING 137 AT THE NAVY YARD AND THE
 MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING EMPLOYEES MOVING 4 BLOCKS TO THE CENTRAL
 SUPPORT FIELD OFFICE HEADQUARTER AT 10 P STREET, N.W.
 
    6.  THE EMPLOYEES IN THE MOVING FORCE AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
 LANDSCAPING SECTION CONTINUED TO PERFORM THE SAME DUTIES IN SAME WAY AND
 UNDER THE SAME FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL SUPERVISION AS THEY DID PRIOR TO
 THE REORGANIZATION.
 
    7.  THE CENTRAL SUPPORT FIELD OFFICE AT 10 P STREET, N.W. ALSO HOUSES
 A NUMBER OF SHOPS STAFFED BY A VARIETY OF OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS (E.G.
 CARPENTER, ROOFER, SHEET METAL MECHANIC, ETC.) THAT ARE IN A COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTED BY AFGE LOCAL 2151.
 
    8.  THE 1974 REORGANIZATION TRANSFERRED THE THREE HEATING SECTIONS
 REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 960 TO THE NEWLY FORMED HEATING OPERATION AND
 TRANSMISSION AREA OFFICE (HOTA) TOGETHER WITH FIVE ADDITIONAL PLANTS NOT
 REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 960.
 
    9.  THE EMPLOYEES IN THE THREE HEATING PLANTS REPRESENTED BY LOCAL
 960 PERFORMED THE SAME FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
 REORGANIZATION UNDER THE SAME FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL SUPERVISION.  UNDER
 HOTA EACH PLANT IS HEADED BY A PLANT CHIEF WHO REPORTS TO HIS FIELD
 MANAGER WHO IN TURN REPORTS TO THE AREA MANAGER.  THE VIRGINIA PLANT IS
 NOT IN THE SAME FIELD OFFICE AS THE CENTRAL AND WEST PLANTS AND ALL
 THREE UP THERE ARE IN FIELD OFFICES WITH CERTAIN PLANTS NOT REPRESENTED
 BY LIUNA.
 
    10.  ALL OF THE ACTIVITY'S WASHINGTON AREA WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES ARE
 SERVICED BY A CENTRAL PERSONNEL OFFICE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
 REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURES, HAVE THE SAME COMPETITIVE AREA IN A RIF
 AND HAVE THE SAME MERIT PROMOTION PLAN AS WELL AS THE SAME AREA OF
 CONSIDERATION IN PROMOTION ACTIONS.
 
    11.  WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 960, THE
 REORGANIZATION DID NOT CHANGE THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTIONS
 OR THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION IN REDUCTION IN FORCE SITUATIONS.
 
    12.  THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN LOCAL 960 AND GSA
 WAS EXTENDED BY LETTERS IN 1975, 1976, AND 1977.
 
    13.  IN 1976, LOCAL 960 FILED A PETITION TO AMEND AND CLARIFY THE
 UNIT TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE UNION'S NAME.  THE ACTIVITY DID NOT
 OPPOSE THE UNION'S PETITION, BUT RATHER, IN ITS LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT
 OF LABOR, INDICATED THAT DUE TO THE 1974 REORGANIZATION AT PBS THE
 ACTIVITY WANTED TO MANDATORY EXCLUSIONS ADDED TO THE UNIT DESCRIPTION.
 ACCORDINGLY ON AUGUST 24, 1976 THE UNIT IN QUESTION WAS AMENDED AND
 CLARIFIED.
 
    14.  THE ACTIVITY EMPLOYS A TOTAL OF ABOUT 7700 EMPLOYEES AND THEY
 ARE DIVIDED INTO ABOUT 29 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND ARE
 REPRESENTED BY 24 LOCAL UNIONS.  THERE ARE CURRENTLY APPROXIMATELY 19
 DIFFERENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS IN EFFECT.
 
    15.  DURING MID-DECEMBER 1977 THE OFFICIALS OF THE ACTIVITY BEGAN TO
 CONSIDER WHETHER IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO FILE A PETITION TO CHALLENGE
 THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 960 BECAUSE OF THE
 1974 REORGANIZATION.
 
    16.  BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 27, 1977, LOCAL 960 ADVISED THE
 ACTIVITY THAT IT WISHED TO REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
 
    17.  THE ACTIVITY REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH LOCAL 960, CONCERNING A NEW
 CONTRACT AND, AFTER HAVING RECEIVED LIUNA'S REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE FOR A
 NEW CONTRACT, THE ACTIVITY FILED THE PETITIONS IN CASE NUMBER
 22-8681(RA) AND 22-8699(CU).
 
    18.  THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE ACTIVITY IN ANY OTHER
 RESPECT REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE OR BARGAIN WITH LOCAL 960.  THE ACTIVITY
 STATED IT WOULD CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT AND WOULD FOLLOW THE SAME PERSONNEL POLICIES.
 
                            CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
 
    IN THE SUBJECT SITUATION LOCAL 960 CONTENDS THAT THE ACTIVITY
 VIOLATED THE ORDER BY REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE A NEW CONTRACT WITH LOCAL
 960 COVERING THE EXISTING UNIT THAT LOCAL 960 TRADITIONALLY REPRESENTED.
  THE ACTIVITY URGES, HOWEVER, THAT AS A RESULT OF A 1974 REORGANIZATION,
 THE UNIT IN QUESTION CEASED TO EXIST, THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION
 CONCERNING REPRESENTATION.  THIS RESULTED IN THE FILING OF THE RA
 PETITION AND THUS ENTITLED THE ACTIVITY TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN WITH LIUNA
 FOR A CONTRACT COVERING THAT UNIT.  ALSO, WITH RESPECT TO THE
 REORGANIZATION, THE ACTIVITY CONTENDS THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE
 LOCAL 960 UNIT WERE ACCRETED TO A UNIT REPRESENTED BY AFGE LOCAL 2151
 AND THEREFORE THE ACTIVITY FILED THE CU PETITION.  FURTHER THE ACTIVITY
 CONTENDS THAT THERE REALLY IS NO LONGER ANY COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG
 THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 960 AND THAT IN ANY
 EVENT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME 29 DIFFERENT UNITS WITHIN THE ACTIVITY,
 THERE IS SO MUCH SUCH FRAGMENTATION THAT IT LEADS TO INEFFICIENCY AND IS
 THEREFORE INAPPROPRIATE.
 
    IN 1968 THE ACTIVITY VOLUNTARILY RECOGNIZED THAT THE UNIT IN QUESTION
 WAS APPROPRIATE AND VOLUNTARILY RECOGNIZED LIUNA AS THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGENT FOR THAT UNIT.  FOR TEN YEARS THE ACTIVITY AND LOCAL
 960 HAD AN ACTIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP WITH RESPECT TO THE
 UNIT IN QUESTION INCLUDING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS,
 AFTER THE INITIAL TWO YEAR TERM, RENEWED YEARLY ON THREE OCCASIONS.  IN
 LIGHT OF SUCH A LENGTHY AND EXTENSIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HISTORY
 INVOLVING THE UNIT IN QUESTION, SUCH UNIT MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE
 APPROPRIATE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE AND TO PERMIT
 A PARTY TO RAISE A QUESTION CONCERNING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF AN
 EXISTING UNIT AFTER SUCH A LENGTHY AND EXTENSIVE HISTORY AND TRADITION
 OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WOULD BE TO INTERJECT A VERY SUBSTANTIAL AND
 UNWARRANTED ELEMENT OF INSTABILITY INTO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 RELATIONSHIP AND WOULD THUS FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ORDER.  CF.
 GSA, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICES, RARITAN DEPOT, EDISON, NEW JERSEY, A/SLMR
 NO. 66.
 
    THE ACTIVITY CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE UNIT IN QUESTION CAN NO
 LONGER BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
 OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE ORDER SINCE IT DOES NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE
 DEALINGS AND EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS.  HOWEVER, THE ONLY EVIDENCE TO
 SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION IS THAT THE ACTIVITY IS CURRENTLY FACED WITH 29
 DIFFERENT UNITS REPRESENTED BY 24 DIFFERENT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  SUCH
 EVIDENCE, ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNIT IN QUESTION
 FAILS TO PROMOTE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS.  CF. DEFENSE SUPPLY
 AGENCY, DCASR., A/SLMR NO. 687;  DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PASSPORT OFFICE,
 CHICAGO, ILL., A/SLMR NO. 697;  AND DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, DCAS, A/SLMR
 NO. 559.
 
    IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THE FOREGOING IT IS CONCLUDED, THAT THE EXISTING
 UNIT REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 960 IS APPROPRIATE ABSENT A FINDING THAT THE
 REORGANIZATION OF 1914 SUFFICIENTLY CHANGED THE UNIT SO AS TO DESTROY
 ITS APPROPRIATENESS.  IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE REORGANIZATION DID NOT
 SUFFICIENTLY CHANGE THE OPERATION SO AS TO DESTROY THE APPROPRIATENESS
 OF THE UNIT.  THEREFORE ALTHOUGH THERE WERE SOME "PAPER CHANGES" AND PBS
 WAS DESTROYED AND ITS COMPONENTS TRANSFERRED TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE
 ACTIVITY, THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT IN QUESTION CONTINUED TO PERFORM THE
 SAME EXACT DUTIES UNDER THE SAME FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL SUPERVISION.  IN
 TWO OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE UNIT, THE MOVING OPERATION AND THE HEATING
 PLANT OPERATIONS, THE EMPLOYEES WORKED IN THE SAME PHYSICAL LOCATION AND
 IN THE THIRD COMPONENT, MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING, THE HEADQUARTERS
 WAS MOVED 4 BLOCKS, BUT THE EMPLOYEES ONLY REPORTED THERE IN THE MORNING
 AND THEN CONTINUED TO WORK ALL OVER THE CITY, THE WAY THEY HAD PRIOR TO
 THE REORGANIZATION.  FURTHER THESE LATTER EMPLOYEES CONTINUED TO STORE
 MUCH OF THEIR EQUIPMENT IN THE NAVY YARD.  FINALLY WITH RESPECT TO ALL
 THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT, THE REORGANIZATION DID NOT CHANGE EITHER THE
 AREA OF CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION OR IN RIF SITUATIONS.  THE RECORD
 DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT INTERCHANGE BETWEEN EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE UNIT IN
 QUESTION AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WAS INCREASED AS A RESULT OF THE
 REORGANIZATION.  FINALLY THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT CONTINUED TO BE
 CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE.
 
    IT MUST BE FURTHER TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE 1974
 REORGANIZATION TOOK PLACE 4 YEARS PRIOR TO THE REFUSAL TO RENEGOTIATE
 THE CONTRACT AND THE FILING OF THE PETITIONS IN THE SUBJECT CASE.
 DURING THIS 4 YEAR PERIOD, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS
 RENEWED 3 TIMES AND A CU PETITION WAS FILED IN 1976 WHICH RESULTED, WITH
 SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE 1974 REORGANIZATION, IN AN AMENDMENT TO AND
 CLARIFICATION OF THE UNIT.  THE RECORD FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT AT ANY
 TIME DURING THIS PERIOD DID THE ACTIVITY CONTEND THAT THE REORGANIZATION
 WAS SUFFICIENT TO DESTROY THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT.  ACCORDINGLY,
 I AM CONSTRAINED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE 1974 REORGANIZATION DID NOT
 DESTROY THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT IN QUESTION.  CF.  NAVAL
 AEROSPACE AND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PENSACOLA, FLA., A/SLMR NO. 603.
 
    BECAUSE THE 1974 REORGANIZATION DID NOT MATERIALLY AFFECT THE UNIT IN
 QUESTION, I MUST CONCLUDE THAT NO QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
 EXISTS AND I MUST RECOMMEND THAT THE PETITION IN CASE NUMBER 22-8681(RA)
 SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  FURTHER SINCE THE UNIT REMAINED INTACT AND THE
 RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS ANY ACCRETION TO THE UNIT
 REPRESENTED BY AFGE LOCAL 2151, I MUST RECOMMEND THAT THE PETITION IN
 CASE NUMBER 62-8699(CU) SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
 
    IT IS CLEAR THAT IF AN ACTIVITY DOUBTS WHETHER AN INCUMBENT UNION
 CONTINUES TO REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A UNIT OR WHETHER
 THE UNIT IS APPROPRIATE THE ACTIVITY MUST FILE A TIMELY RA PETITION AND,
 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PETITION, MUST CONTINUE TO APPLY THE EXISTING
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND TO RECOGNIZE THE INCUMBENT UNION.
 CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, YUMA PROJECTS
 OFFICE, YUMA, ARIZONA, FLRA NO. 74A-52 (SEPTEMBER 17, 1976) AND DEFENSE
 SUPPLY AGENCY, ABERDEEN, MD., FLRC NO. 74A-22 (DECEMBER 9, 1976), A/SLMR
 NO. 615.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ACTIVITY FILED A TIMELY RA PETITION
 AND CLEARLY STATED THAT IT STILL CONTINUED TO APPLY THE EXISTING
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND, APPARENTLY, CONTINUED TO RECOGNIZE
 LOCAL 960 AS THE COLLECTIVE RA PETITION. THE ACTIVITY, HOWEVER, QUITE
 PROPERLY REFUSED TO BARGAIN A NEW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH
 LOCAL 960 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE RA PETITION.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE
 INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, YUMA PROJECTS OFFICE, YUMA, ARIZONA,
 SUPRA AND HEADQUARTER, U.S. ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS COMMAND, 72A-30 (JULY
 25, 1973).  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, ALTHOUGH I RECOMMEND THAT THE RA
 PETITION BE DISMISSED, THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE RA
 PETITION WAS FRIVOLOUS, UNREASONABLE OR FILED IN BAD FAITH OR SOLELY TO
 AVOID OR DELAY BARGAINING.  RATHER, NOTING THAT THE RECORD FAILS TO
 ESTABLISH ANY HISTORY OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE ACTIVITY, THE
 RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD A REAL QUESTION CONCERNING
 WHETHER THE EXCITING UNIT HAD CEASED TO MAINTAIN ITS INTEGRITY AS A
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN THOUGH IF THE
 RA PETITION IS DISMISSED THE ACTIVITY WILL HAVE NO BARGAIN WITH LOCAL
 960 FOR A NEW CONTRACT, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITY DID NOT
 UNLAWFULLY REFUSE TO BARGAIN OR UNLAWFULLY WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM
 LOCAL 960 AND THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(5) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER.
 
    FINALLY THE RECORD IS DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
 FILING OF THE CU PETITION WAS IN BAD FAITH OR FOR ANY UNLAWFUL MOTIVE OF
 ASSISTING AFGE LOCAL 2151.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE
 ACTIVITY DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(3) OF THE ORDER.  SIMILARLY, IT
 IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITY DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE
 ORDER.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, I ORDER THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THE SUBJECT
 CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
 
                              RECOMMENDATION
 
    IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT THE PETITION IN CASES NUMBERED
 22-8681(RA) AND 22-8699(CU) BE DISMISSED.
 
                           SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  FEBRUARY 16, 1979
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    SAC:LE
 
    /1A/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM
 ACT OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE
 BASIS OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD
 ARISEN UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    /1/ AFGE LOCAL 2151 WAS SERVED WITH THE NOTICES OF HEARING BUT DID
 NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FILE A BRIEF.
 
    /2/ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING IS HEREBY CORRECTED TO REFLECT ON
 PAGE 206, LINES 22-23 THAT WITNESS TEDESCO RESPONDED "YES" TO THE
 QUESTION.