U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cincinnati Service Office (Activity) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 75 (Petitioner)  

 1 FLRA No. 83
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
 AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
 CINCINNATI SERVICE OFFICE
 Activity
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 75
 Petitioner
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 53-10534(RO)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    UPON A PETITION DULY FILED UNDER SECTION 6 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491,
 AS AMENDED, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE HEARING OFFICER JUDY L. ALLEN.
 THE HEARING OFFICER'S RULINGS MADE AT THE HEARING ARE FREE FROM
 PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.
 
    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).
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:
 
    THE PETITIONER, LOCAL 75, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 (NFFE), SEEKS AN ELECTION IN A UNIT COMPOSED OF ALL PROFESSIONAL AND
 NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
 URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), CINCINNATI SERVICE OFFICE.  THE ACTIVITY'S
 POSITION IS THAT A REORGANIZATION, SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE
 PETITION, RENDERED THE PETITIONED FOR UNIT NOT APPROPRIATE.
 
    SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE INSTANT PETITION, THE AGENCY EFFECTED
 A REORGANIZATION WHICH REVAMPED THE FIELD OFFICE STRUCTURE IN THE
 CHICAGO REGION OF HUD.  PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION, THE CINCINNATI
 SERVICE OFFICE, THE UNIT SOUGHT HEREIN, WAS A FULL SERVICE HOUSING
 OFFICE, ESSENTIALLY OPERATING AUTONOMOUSLY WITHIN ITS GEOGRAPHIC
 JURISDICTION, WITH ITS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND REPORTING DIRECTLY
 TO THE CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE.  THE OTHER HUD OFFICES IN OHIO, THE
 COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE AND THE CLEVELAND FULL SERVICE HOUSING OFFICE, ALSO
 REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE BEFORE THE
 REORGANIZATION.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO HISTORY OF BARGAINING AMONG
 EMPLOYEES IN THE PETITIONED FOR UNIT, NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AT BOTH
 THE COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE AND THE CLEVELAND FULL SERVICE HOUSING OFFICE
 ARE REPRESENTED, IN SEPARATE UNITS, BY LOCALS OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (AFGE).
 
    AS A RESULT OF THE REORGANIZATION, THE CINCINNATI SERVICE OFFICE LOST
 SOME OF ITS FUNCTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.  THE DIRECTOR OF
 THE CINCINNATI OFFICE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE AND
 BECAME THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING.  THE CURRENT SUPERVISOR OF THE
 CINCINNATI OFFICE NOW REPORTS TO THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING WHO REPORTS TO
 THE AREA MANAGER IN COLUMBUS.  THUS, THE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY FORMERLY VESTED IN THE CINCINNATI OFFICE, IS NOW THE
 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AREA MANAGER IN COLUMBUS WHO HAS FINAL AUTHORITY
 ON ALL PERSONNEL ACTIONS TO THE GS-12 LEVEL WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION.
 WHEREAS THE DAY-TO-DAY FUNCTIONING OF PERSONNEL SERVICES IN CINCINNATI
 IS ADMINISTERED BY THE PERSONNEL ASSISTANT IN CINCINNATI, HE, IN TURN,
 IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION IN COLUMBUS FOR ALL
 ACTIONS TAKEN.  FURTHER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING,
 IN COLUMBUS, HAS DISCRETION TO ASSIGN OR REASSIGN INDIVIDUALS TO
 DIFFERENT POSITIONS WITHIN THE DIVISION, AND, BASED ON TECHNICAL NEEDS
 OR WORKLOAD, TO DETAIL OR REASSIGN EMPLOYEES FROM CINCINNATI TO
 COLUMBUS.  FURTHER, ALTHOUGH EMPLOYEES IN CINCINNATI HAVE SKILLS SIMILAR
 TO THOSE OF COLUMBUS EMPLOYEES, GRADE LEVELS OR POTENTIAL GRADE LEVELS
 BETWEEN THE CINCINNATI AND COLUMBUS OFFICES ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE
 EMPLOYEES IN COLUMBUS HANDLE ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.  THE AREA OF
 COMPETITION FOR MOST POSITIONS IN CINCINNATI WOULD BE STATE-WIDE, EXCEPT
 THOSE AT THE LOWER GRADES.
 
    BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE PETITIONED FOR
 UNIT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION AS IT
 DOES NOT SATISFY THE SECTION 10(B) UNIT DETERMINATION CRITERIA NOR MEET
 THE OBJECTIVE OF PROMOTING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING UNIT
 STRUCTURE.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, IT IS NOTED THAT THE
 REORGANIZATION SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
 ACTIVITY.  THE HUD OHIO FIELD OFFICE STRUCTURE IS NOW SUCH THAT THE
 CINCINNATI SERVICE OFFICE IS SUBORDINATE ORGANIZATIONALLY TO THE
 COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE.  UNDER THE PRESENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, WHICH
 VESTS LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT THE AREA OFFICE LEVEL, THE PETITIONED
 FOR UNIT WOULD NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY
 OPERATIONS;  RATHER, IT WOULD LEAD TO FURTHER FRAGMENTATION OF
 BARGAINING UNITS.  FURTHER, SINCE ALL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND LABOR
 RELATIONS POLICY ORIGINATES AT THE AREA OFFICE LEVEL, THE CLAIMED
 EMPLOYEES DO NOT SHARE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WHICH IS SEPARATE AND
 DISTINCT FROM THE EMPLOYEES IN THE COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY WILL ORDER THAT THE PETITION HEREIN BE
 DISMISSED.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IS IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PETITION IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
 NO. 53-10534(RO) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 13, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    /1/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE INSTANT CASE WAS 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 DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE MEANING OR
 APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH
 WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE
 STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.