U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees,  Local 12 , AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) and National Council of Field Labor Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 



[ v03 p645 ]
03:0645(104)CU
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 104
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR
 LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization
 
                                            Case No. 3-CU-26
 
                    DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT
 
    UPON A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 UNDER SECTION 7111(B)(2) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C.  7101-7135, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A
 HEARING OFFICER OF THE AUTHORITY. THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE HEARING
 OFFICER'S RULINGS MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT THEY ARE FREE FROM
 PREJUDICIAL ERROR. THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING BRIEFS FILED BY THE
 ACTIVITY AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12,
 AFL-CIO (LOCAL 12), THE AUTHORITY FINDS:  THE PETITIONER, THE U.S.
 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (ACTIVITY/DEPARTMENT), SEEKS THE CLARIFY TWO
 EXISTING BARGAINING UNITS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.  IT CONTENDS THAT THE
 FIELD OFFICE EMPLOYEES IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA, THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY
 BEEN INCLUDED IN A UNIT FOR WHICH LOCAL 12 WAS GRANTED RECOGNITION IN
 1962, SHOULD NO LONGER BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT.  INSTEAD, IT CONTENDS
 THAT THEY SHOULD NOW, BY CLARIFICATION, BE INCLUDED WITHIN ANOTHER UNIT
 GRANTED RECOGNITION BY THE ACTIVITY IN 1965, WHICH UNIT CONSISTS OF ALL
 FIELD OFFICE EMPLOYEES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA,
 REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (COUNCIL).  IN THIS
 CONNECTION, THE ACTIVITY ASSERTS THE PURPOSE OF THE INSTANT PETITION WAS
 NOT TO CHANGE LOCAL 12S BARGAINING UNIT BUT MERELY TO HAVE IT ACCURATELY
 REFLECT WHAT HAD BEEN A REALITY SINCE 1965,BROUGHT ABOUT BY A MEMORANDUM
 OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  THE ACTIVITY SEEKS SUCH
 CLARIFICATION ESSENTIALLY TO "INSURE THAT THE OFFICIAL UNIT DEFINITION
 RECORDS OF THE FLRA REFLECT THE UNIT DEFINITION WHICH HAD BEEN CLARIFIED
 IN DECEMBER 1965." SUCH MEMORANDUM, IT CONTENDED, INDICATES THAT AT THE
 TIME, THE PARTIES AGREED THE D.C. METROPOLITAN FIELD OFFICE EMPLOYEES,
 ALTHOUGH REPRESENTED FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURPOSES BY LOCAL 12,
 WHICH FOR THOSE PURPOSES WAS AN AFFILIATED COUNCIL LODGE, WERE INCLUDED
 WITHIN THE COUNCIL'S UNIT.  THE ACTIVITY ARGUES SUCH CONTENTION IS
 REINFORCED BY ITS SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN ITS FIELD STRUCTURE, ITS 1973
 LABOR AGREEMENT WITH LOCAL 12, AND ITS 1978 AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNCIL.
 THE ACTIVITY CONTENDS THE INCLUSION OF SUCH FIELD OFFICE EMPLOYEES IN
 THE COUNCIL UNIT WOULD PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND EFFICIENCY OF
 OPERATIONS.
 
    LOCAL 12 OPPOSES THE INCLUSION OF THE FIELD EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION IN
 ANY UNIT OTHER THAN ITS EXISTING UNIT.  IN THIS REGARD, LOCAL 12 ASSERTS
 NO CHANGES OF CONSEQUENCE HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ACTIVITY'S FIELD
 STRUCTURE SINCE 1962, WHICH WOULD WARRANT ACCRETING THESE EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED SINCE 1962 BY LOCAL 12, INTO THE COUNCIL'S UNIT.  IT ALSO
 MAINTAINS THAT THE FIELD OFFICES IN QUESTION WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE
 TIME OF ITS ORIGINAL RECOGNITION AND THE 1965 EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION
 ACCORDED THE COUNCIL, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE FIELD EMPLOYEES IN
 QUESTION BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN LOCAL 12'S 1962 EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION.  LOCAL 12 REGARDS THE 1965 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AS
 MERELY A REAFFIRMATION OF THAT REALITY, AND THE 1973 AGREEMENT BETWEEN
 ITSELF AND THE ACTIVITY AS FURTHER UNDERSCORING THAT FACT.  IT VIEWS THE
 ACTIVITY'S 1978 AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNCIL AS AN ILLEGAL ATTEMPT TO
 INCLUDE THE D.C.  METROPOLITAN FIELD OFFICE EMPLOYEES PREVIOUSLY
 INCLUDED WITHIN LOCAL 12'S 1962 RECOGNITION AND SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED BY
 THE COUNCIL'S 1965 RECOGNITION MENTIONED ABOVE, WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN
 ALTERED BY A CLARIFICATION OF THE PARTIES OR ANY THIRD PARTY PROCEEDING.
  THE COUNCIL TOOK NO POSITION AT THE HEARING OR BY SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS.
 
    THERE ARE ROUGHLY 22,000 EMPLOYEES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WITH
 APPROXIMATELY 9,000 IN THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA, AND THE BALANCE
 IN THE FIELD.  THE COUNCIL HEREIN REPRESENTS OVER 6,000 EMPLOYEES IN A
 DEPARTMENT-WIDE UNIT OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON, D.C.  AREA, WHILE LOCAL 12
 REPRESENTS OVER 4,000 EMPLOYEES IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA.  THE
 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED
 OUT OF LOCAL 12'S UNIT IS ABOUT 226.  IN 1962, PURSUANT TO A SECRET
 BALLOT ELECTION, THE ACTIVITY GRANTED LOCAL 12 EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION
 UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 10988, FOR A UNIT CONSISTING OF EMPLOYEES OF THE
 ACTIVITY LOCATED IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF WASHINGTON, D.C., WHICH
 INCLUDED THE NATIONAL OFFICE AND CERTAIN FIELD OFFICES LOCATED IN THAT
 AREA.  IN 1965, AFTER AN ELECTION, THE ACTIVITY GRANTED EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 10988, TO THE COUNCIL, FOR A UNIT OF
 ALL ACTIVITY FIELD OFFICES OUTSIDE OF THE WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPOLITAN
 AREA.  BECAUSE OF SOME CONFUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREGOING
 RECOGNITIONS, THE PREVIOUSLY CITED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
 THE PARTIES WAS EXECUTED IN 1965, WHICH APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THE MAJOR
 REASONS FOR THE INSTANT PETITION.  LOCAL 12 CONTENDS THAT SUCH DOCUMENT
 CLARIFIED THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED RECOGNITION BY REAFFIRMING LOCAL 12'S
 INCLUSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C. FIELD EMPLOYEES IN ITS UNIT, AND THE
 ACTIVITY CONTENDS THAT BY SUCH DOCUMENT THE ORIGINAL RECOGNITIONS WERE
 MODIFIED TO INCLUDE THESE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE COUNCIL'S UNIT. THE 1973
 AGREEMENT BETWEEN LOCAL 12 AND THE ACTIVITY, ALSO CONTAINS SOME
 AMBIGUITY.  THUS, THE PREAMBLE OF THAT DOCUMENT, LOCAL 12 INSISTS, IS
 SUPPORTIVE OF ITS UNIT CONTENTION BY VIRTUE OF THE LANGUAGE THEREIN, TO
 WIT:" THIS AGREEMENT . . . SHALL BE APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE BARGAINING
 UNIT IN THE DEPARTMENT IN THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA, FOR WHICH
 LOCAL 12 IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE." HOWEVER, THE UNIT DEFINITION
 IN THAT AGREEMENT STATES IN PERTINENT PART:  "THE UNIT INCLUDES ALL
 EMPLOYEES IN THE NATIONAL OFFICE." THE ACTIVITY ASSERTS THAT THE LATTER
 PROVISION RECOGNIZES AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT;  NAMELY, THAT D.C.
 METROPOLITAN AREA FIELD OFFICE EMPLOYEES WERE CLARIFIED OUT OF LOCAL
 12'S UNIT BY THE 1965 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND SO WERE PURPOSELY
 NOT MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE UNIT DESCRIPTION.  THIS VERITY IS BOLSTERED,
 THE ACTIVITY WOULD URGE, BY THE 1978 CURRENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ITSELF
 AND THE COUNCIL.  SECTION 2 OF THE 1978 AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES
 IN THE UNIT, FIELD DUTY STATIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE D.C.  METROPOLITAN
 AREA.  WITH RESPECT TO A REGIONAL OFFICE ORGANIZED IN 1968 IN
 PHILADELPHIA TO ENGAGE IN SOME DEALINGS WITH THE FIELD OFFICES LOCATED
 IN THE D.C. AREA, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT SUCH ORGANIZATION AFFECTED
 ANY NOTICEABLE CHANGE IN THE FIELD OFFICES IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OR
 TODAY.
 
    UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS THE AUTHORITY