---

 3 FLRA No. 117
 
 CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
 Union
 
 and
 
 THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-66
 
                     DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
    THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
 AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET
 SEQ.).  THE UNION SUBMITTED A MULTISECTION PROPOSAL TO THE AGENCY
 CONCERNING A REORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN LAW DIVISION OF THE
 CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WHICH IS
 REPRINTED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN APPENDIX A.
 
                      SECTION 1 OF THE UNION PROPOSAL
 
    SECTION 1 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL REQUIRES THE AGENCY TO CREATE FOUR
 SECTIONS INSTEAD OF TWO IN ITS AMERICAN LAW DIVISION AND MANDATES THAT
 EACH SECTION BE ASSIGNED A SECTION COORDINATOR.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SECTION 1 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES
 THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE ITS ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE, /1/ AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  SECTION 1 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES MANAGEMENT'S
 RIGHT TO DETERMINE IT ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE
 STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2424.10 (1980), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION
 THAT SECTION 1 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
 IS SUSTAINED.
 
    REASONS:  SECTION 1 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL STATES THAT "(T)HE
 FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES SHALL TAKE PLACE IN THE AMERICAN LAW
 DIVISION . . ." AND, THAT "(F)OUR SECTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS WILL BE CREATED
 IN PLACE OF THE PRESENT TWO." THEREAFTER, SECTION 1 WOULD ESTABLISH WHAT
 SECTIONS WILL BE PART OF THE AMERICAN LAW DIVISION AND EACH SECTION'S
 SUBSTANTIVE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY.  SECTION 1 CONCLUDES BY PROVIDING
 THAT "(E)ACH SECTION WILL HAVE ASSIGNED TO IT A SECTION COORDINATOR."
 
    THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 1 WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO ADOPT A
 CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.  SECTION 7106(A)(1), HOWEVER,
 EXPRESSLY RESERVES TO MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF ANY AGENCY THE RIGHT TO
 DETERMINE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE AGENCY. THUS, SECTION 1 OF THE UNION'S
 PROPOSAL CLEARLY VIOLATES THE AGENCY'S RIGHT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE TO DETERMINE THE "ORGANIZATION" OF THE AGENCY.  HENCE, THE
 AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT SECTION 1 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN
 THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
                      SECTION 2 OF THE UNION PROPOSAL
 
    SECTION 2 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL SEEKS TO ESTABLISH THAT SECTION
 COORDINATORS ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE.  /2/
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SECTION 2 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS PROPERLY
 BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AT THIS TIME.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  SECTION 2 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE
 THE AUTHORITY AT THIS TIME BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO RESOLVE A DISPUTE AS TO
 WHETHER SECTION COORDINATORS ARE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUE.  SUCH MATTERS SHOULD PROPERLY BE
 ADDRESSED IN THE CONTEXT OF A CLARIFICATION OF UNIT (CU) PETITION, /3/
 RATHER THAN A NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL.  ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 2 OF THE
 UNION'S PROPOSAL IS DENIED WITHOUT PASSING ON THE MERITS AND WITHOUT
 PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ANY NEGOTIABILITY
 ISSUE WHICH MAY REMAIN AFTER THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER SECTION
 COORDINATORS ARE SUPERVISORS IS RESOLVED THROUGH A CU PETITION.
 
    REASONS:  THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE ESTABLISHES
 THAT SECTION 2 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL SEEKS TO SETTLE A FACTUAL
 DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE AGENCY CONCERNING WHETHER
 SECTION
 COORDINATORS ARE SUPERVISORS.  IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LANGUAGE OF THE
 UNION'S PROPOSAL STATES CATEGORICALLY THAT SECTION COORDINATORS ARE NOT
 SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE THEY LACK
 AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER EXISTING JOB DESCRIPTIONS TO HIRE,
 FIRE, DIRECT, PROMOTE, REWARD, TRANSFER, FURLOUGH, LAYOFF, RECALL,
 SUSPEND, DISCIPLINE OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES.  THE AGENCY, ON THE OTHER HAND,
 ASSERTS THAT SECTION COORDINATORS ARE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 THE STATUTE BECAUSE OF CERTAIN DUTIES THEY PERFORM.  UNDER THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM WHEREBY AN AGENCY OR A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION CAN SEEK AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION ON SUCH MATTERS WOULD
 BE A CU PETITION FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2422.2(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2422.2(C)(1980).
 
         SECTION 3 TO 12 OF THE UNION PROPOSAL (APART FROM SECTION
 
                                    8)
 
    SECTIONS 3 TO 12 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL, APART FROM SECTION 8, WHICH
 IS ADDRESSED SEPARATELY HEREIN, CONCERN THE APPLICABILITY OF MERIT PAY
 TO SECTION COORDINATORS;  THE DUTIES OF SECTION COORDINATORS;  SELECTION
 PROCEDURES FOR SECTION COORDINATORS;  RELIEF FROM SECTION COORDINATOR
 DUTIES;  AND OTHER MATTERS REGARDING SECTION COORDINATORS.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THESE SECTIONS OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL ARE
 PROPERLY BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AT THIS TIME.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  SECTION 3 TO 12 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL, APART FROM
 SECTION 8, ARE DEPENDENT IN SUBSTANCE ON A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER
 SECTION COORDINATORS ARE SUPERVISORS, UNDER PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY
 THE AUTHORITY IN SECTION 2422.2(C) OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5
 C.F.R. 2422.2(C)(1980). /4/ ACCORDINGLY, THAT PORTION OF THE UNION'S
 APPEAL RELATING TO THESE SECTIONS DOES NOT PRESENT ISSUES THAT THE
 AUTHORITY CAN APPROPRIATELY RESOLVE AT THIS TIME UNDER SECTION 7117 OF
 THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS.  THEREFORE, THE
 APPEAL AS TO THESE SECTIONS IS DENIED WITHOUT PASSING ON THE MERITS AND
 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ANY
 NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE WHICH MAY REMAIN AFTER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
 SECTION COORDINATORS ARE SUPERVISORS IS RESOLVED THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE
 PROCEDURES AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION 2 OF THE
 UNION'S PROPOSAL.
 
    REASONS:  THE RECORD INDICATES THAT SECTION 3 TO 12 OF THE UNION'S
 PROPOSAL, APART FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 8, ARE DERIVATIVE OF
 SECTION 2, PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, HEREIN, AND ALL ASSUME THAT SECTION
 COORDINATORS ARE NOT SUPERVISORS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 2.  UNTIL THE
 QUESTION OF WHETHER SECTION COORDINATORS ARE SUPERVISORS OR NOT IS
 RESOLVED UNDER PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY IN SECTION
 2422.2(C) OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R.  2422.2(C)(1980), THE
 AUTHORITY WILL NOT DECIDE ANY NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES WHICH WOULD BE
 PRESENTED IF IT WERE DETERMINED THAT SECTION COORDINATORS ARE NOT
 SUPERVISORS UNDER THE STATUTE.  FURTHERMORE, WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 3
 OF THE PROPOSAL, CONCERNED WITH "MERIT PAY," IT IS NOTED THAT THE
 AUTHORITY DETERMINED ON APRIL 1, 1980, THAT AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
 STATUTE WAS WARRANTED ON THE FOLLOWING:
 
    WHAT IS THE IMPACT, IF ANY, OF AN AGENCY DETERMINATION THAT AN
 EMPLOYEE IS A SUPERVISOR OR
 
    MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL FOR PURPOSES OF COVERAGE UNDER THE "MERIT PAY"
 PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL
 
    SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1179) ON SUCH EMPLOYEE'S
 INCLUSION IN A UNIT OF EXCLUSIVE
 
    RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 7112 OF THE STATUTE (92 STAT. 1200)?
 
    IN VIEW OF THE PENDENCY OF THIS MATTER, ISSUANCE OF ITS
 INTERPRETATION BY THE AUTHORITY WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL PREREQUISITE TO
 THE CONSIDERATION OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY
 OF MERIT PAY TO SECTION COORDINATORS.  THAT IS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT
 THE UNION'S APPEAL IS PREMATURELY FILED, AND THUS, THE CONDITIONS FOR
 REVIEW OF THE ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE PRESENTED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7117 OF
 THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, HAVE
 NOT BEEN MET.  THERE ARE SOUND POLICY REASONS FOR SO FINDING.  THE
 RESOLUTION OF THE MATTER OF THE SUPERVISORY STATUS OF SECTION
 COORDINATORS COULD RESULT IN A DETERMINATION WHICH WOULD RENDER MOOT THE
 NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES HEREIN AND AVOID AN UNWARRANTED PROLIFERATION OF
 CASES BEFORE THE AUTHORITY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WERE THE AUTHORITY TO
 DECIDE THAT SECTIONS 3 TO 12, EXCLUDING SECTION 8, ARE NEGOTIABLE WHILE
 THE QUESTION OF THE SUPERVISORY STATUS OF SECTION COORDINATORS REMAINED
 TO BE RESOLVED, SUCH AUTHORITY DECISION WOULD LACK FINALITY.  /5/ IN
 THIS REGARD, SECTION 2429.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5
 C.F.R. 2429.10 (1980), PROVIDES THAT "THE AUTHORITY . . . WILL NOT ISSUE
 ADVISORY OPINIONS."
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THAT PORTION OF THE UNION'S APPEAL RELATING TO SECTION 3
 TO 12 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL, EXCLUDING SECTION 8, IS HEREBY DENIED,
 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RENEWAL OF THE UNION'S APPEAL UNDER THE
 STATUTE, IN A PETITION FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY, AFTER THE QUESTION OF
 THE SUPERVISORY STATUS OF THE SECTION COORDINATORS HEREIN IS RESOLVED
 UNDER APPLICABLE PROCEDURES OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 
                      SECTION 8 OF THE UNION PROPOSAL
 
    SECTION 8 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL PROVIDES THAT RESEARCHERS WILL BE
 FREE TO ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS FROM ALL SECTIONS OF THE AMERICAN LAW
 DIVISION AND ASSIGNS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN
 ASSIGNMENTS AND WORKLOAD TO THE ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SECTION 8 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES
 THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF
 THE STATUTE, /6/ AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  SECTION 8 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF
 THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.
 ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2424.10 (1980), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT
 SECTION 8 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS
 SUSTAINED.
 
    REASONS:  THE RECORD INDICATES THAT SECTION 8 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL
 WOULD EXPRESSLY CONDITION MANAGEMENT'S ASSIGNMENT OF WORK BY PROVIDING
 THAT ANY RESEARCHER WILL BE FREE TO ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS FROM SECTIONS OF
 THE AMERICAN LAW DIVISION OTHER THAN THE SECTION TO WHICH THE RESEARCHER
 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED.  FURTHER, IT WOULD COMPEL THE ASSISTANT DIVISION
 CHIEF TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN ASSIGNMENTS AND WORKLOAD AS MAY ARISE IN
 THE ASSIGNMENT OF WORK.  THE AGENCY RETAINS THE RIGHT UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE TO ASSIGN WORK TO EMPLOYEES.  /7/ SECTION 8
 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL, HOWEVER, WOULD ESTABLISH CONDITIONS
 (RESEARCHERS ARE FREE TO ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS FROM ALL SECTIONS AND
 CONFLICTS ARISING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WILL BE RESOLVED BY THE
 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF) UPON WHICH MANAGEMENT'S ABILITY TO ASSIGN THE
 WORK INVOLVED WOULD BE CONTINGENT.  SECTION 8 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL
 THEREBY WOULD ELIMINATE THE DISCRETION INHERENT IN MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO
 ASSIGN WORK, I.E., WHICH RESEARCHER WILL BE ASSIGNED WHAT WORK, AS WELL
 AS PRESCRIBING A NAMED POSITION TO RESOLVE WORK ASSIGNMENT RELATED
 DISPUTES.  THUS, BECAUSE SECTION 8 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL WOULD
 CONDITION MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN CERTAIN WORK TO EMPLOYEES AND
 WOULD REQUIRE THE INCUMBENT OF A NAMED POSITION TO PERFORM CERTAIN WORK,
 I.E., TO SETTLE DISPUTES RELATING TO WORK ASSIGNMENTS, IT CONFLICTS WITH
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S
 ALLEGATION THAT SECTION 8 OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY
 TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 30, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                                APPENDIX A
 
    1.  THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES SHALL TAKE PLACE IN THE
 AMERICAN LAW DIVISION EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1978.
 
    FOUR SECTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS WILL BE CREATED IN PLACE OF THE PRESENT
 TWO.
 
    A.  A SECTION RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
 
    AND PRIVACY, HEALTH AND WELFARE LAW, INDIAN LAW, LABOR LAW, AND
 PROCUREMENT LAW.
 
    B.  A SECTION RESPONSIBLE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES,
 CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS, COURTS
 
    AND THE JUDICIARY, CRIMINAL LAW, EQUAL RIGHTS, AND JUDICIAL
 PROCEDURE.
 
    C.  A SECTION RESPONSIBLE FOR ANTITRUST, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, TAXATION,
 CONSUMER PROTECTION,
 
    AND COMMERCIAL LAW.
 
    D.  A SECTION RESPONSIBLE FOR CONGRESS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST,
 ELECTION LAW, INTERNATIONAL
 
    LAW, AND PARLIAMENTARY LAW.
 
    THE VIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN
 MAKING ASSIGNMENTS TO SECTIONS. EACH SECTION WILL HAVE ASSIGNED TO IT A
 SECTION COORDINATOR.
 
    2.  IT IS AGREED THAT SECTION COORDINATORS ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN
 THE MEANING OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978 SINCE
 THEY LACK AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER EXISTING JOB DESCRIPTIONS
 TO HIRE, FIRE, DIRECT, PROMOTE, REWARD, TRANSFER, FURLOUGH, LAYOFF,
 RECALL, SUSPEND, DISCIPLINE OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES.
 
    3.  BECAUSE SECTION COORDINATORS ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978, THEY SHALL NOT BE
 SUBJECT TO THE MERIT PAY PROVISIONS OF THAT LAW.
 
    4.  SECTION COORDINATOR DUTIES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    A.  TO ASSIST THE DIVISION CHIEF IN DIRECTING AND COORDINATING THE
 RESEARCH WORK OF
 
    LOWER-GRADE ANALYSTS ASSIGNED TO WORK IN THE FIELD, ADVISING THEM AS
 TO THE SOURCES, SCOPE AND
 
    TREATMENT OF PROBLEMS, AND REVIEWING AND EVALUATING THEIR COMPLETED
 WORK.
 
    B.  TO PROVIDE INPUT FOR CRS MANAGEMENT CONCERNING THE SELECTION OF
 ALL NEW EMPLOYEES OF A
 
    LOWER GRADE;  THE PROMOTION OR REASSIGNMENT OF SECTION ANALYSTS OF A
 LOWER GRADE, AND
 
    PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND WITHIN-GRADE DETERMINATIONS FOR ANALYSTS
 OF A LOWER GRADE.
 
    5.  REVIEW, COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORK OF ANALYSTS
 OF THE SAME GRADE OR A HIGHER GRADE THAN SECTION COORDINATORS SHALL BE
 THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DIVISION CHIEF OR ASSISTANT DIVISION
 CHIEF.
 
    6.  TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE SELECTION OF SECTION COORDINATORS,
 MANAGEMENT SHALL ISSUE A MEMORANDUM CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING
 PROCEDURES:
 
    A.  A STATEMENT THAT MANAGEMENT INTENDS TO SELECT SECTION
 COORDINATORS FOR DESIGNATED
 
    SECTIONS.
 
    B.  A STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE AREAS OF COORDINATION OF THE SECTION
 COORDINATOR;  THE
 
    MINIMUM AND DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS, AND THE MAIN FACTORS GOVERNING
 SELECTION.
 
    C.  A STATEMENT THAT SELECTION SHALL BE MADE ON A NON-DISCRIMINATORY
 BASIS.
 
    D.  A STATEMENT THAT SECTION COORDINATOR IS NOT A SUPERVISORY
 POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING
 
    OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978, AND THAT
 SECTION COORDINATORS WILL NOT
 
    BE SUBJECT TO THE WITHIN-GRADE AND COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE
 LIMITATIONS OF THE MERIT PAY
 
    PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.
 
    E.  A STATEMENT INVITING INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE DIVISION
 TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS
 
    AND TO BE INTERVIEWED.
 
    F.  A STATEMENT THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT APPLY FOR THIS SELECTION
 SHALL NOT, UNDER ANY
 
    CIRCUMSTANCES, BE DESIGNATED AS SECTION COORDINATORS.  THE
 INDIVIDUALS SHALL NOT BE PRECLUDED
 
    FROM APPLYING OR BEING CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE.
 
    G.  A STATEMENT THAT THOSE SELECTED AS SECTION COORDINATORS MAY BE
 RELIEVED OF SECTION
 
    COORDINATOR'S DUTIES UPON THEIR REQUEST, OR AFTER CONSULTATION WITH
 MANAGEMENT, WITH THE
 
    UNDERSTANDING THAT RELIEF FROM SUCH DUTIES SHALL NOT REFLECT
 ADVERSELY UPON THE INDIVIDUAL IN
 
    ANY WAY.
 
    7.  MANAGEMENT SHALL SELECT SECTION COORDINATORS ON THE BASIS OF
 QUALIFICATIONS, FOLLOWING COMPETITION AMONG 11 INTERESTED APPLICANTS, IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS SET OUT IN SECTION 5 OF THIS AGREEMENT.
 THEREAFTER, MANAGEMENT SHALL ISSUE A MEMORANDUM INFORMING DIVISION STAFF
 OF THE PERSONS SELECTED AS SECTION COORDINATORS.
 
    8.  IT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT RESEARCHERS WILL BE FREE TO ACCEPT
 ASSIGNMENTS FROM ALL SECTIONS.  CONFLICTS IN ASSIGNMENTS AND WORKLOAD
 WILL BE RESOLVED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF.
 
    9.  SECTION COORDINATOR POSITIONS SHALL BE ROTATED EVERY 18 MONTHS TO
 TWO YEARS.
 
    10.  WHENEVER SECTION COORDINATOR VACANCIES OCCUR, OR ROTATIONS TAKE
 PLACE, SELECTION OF REPLACEMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
 PROCEDURES SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THIS AGREEMENT.
 
    11.  PERSONS SELECTED AS SECTION COORDINATORS MAY BE RELIEVED OF
 SECTION COORDINATOR DUTIES UPON THEIR REQUEST, OR AFTER CONSULTATION
 WITH MANAGEMENT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT RELIEF FROM SUCH DUTIES
 SHALL NOT REFLECT ADVERSELY UPON THE INDIVIDUAL IN ANY WAY.
 
    12.  THE EXERCISE OF SECTION COORDINATOR DUTIES WILL NEITHER HELP NOR
 HINDER THE POSSIBILITIES FOR GS-15 ATTORNEYS TO BE PROMOTED TO GS-16.
 
    /1/ SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER
 
    SHALL AFFECT THE AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
    (1) TO DETERMINE THE . . . ORGANIZATION . . . OF THE AGENCY(.)
 
    /2/ SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART,
 AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "SUPERVISOR" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY AN AGENCY HAVING
 AUTHORITY IN THE INTEREST OF
 
    THE AGENCY TO HIRE, DIRECT, ASSIGN, PROMOTE, REWARD, TRANSFER,
 FURLOUGH, LAYOFF, RECALL,
 
    SUSPEND, DISCIPLINE, OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES, TO ADJUST THEIR GRIEVANCES,
 OR TO EFFECTIVELY
 
    RECOMMEND SUCH ACTION, IF THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY IS NOT MERELY
 ROUTINE OR CLERICAL IN
 
    NATURE BUT REQUIRES THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT .
 . . (.)
 
    /3/ SECTION 2422.2(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5
 C.F.R. SEC. 2422.2(C)(1980), PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (C) PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION OF UNIT . . . A PETITION FOR
 CLARIFICATION OF UNIT
 
    . . . SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON A FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE AUTHORITY AND
 SHALL CONTAIN . . .
 
    (1) A DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESENT UNIT AND THE DATE OF RECOGNITION OR
 CERTIFICATION;
 
    (2) THE PROPOSED CLARIFICATION . . . ;  AND
 
    (3) A STATEMENT OF REASONS WHY THE PROPOSED CLARIFICATION . .  . IS
 REQUESTED.
 
    /4/ SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA.
 
    /5/ AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1661
 AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF PRISONS, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL
 INSTITUTION, DANBURY, CONNECTICUT, CASE NO. 0-NG-43, 2 FLRA NO. 56
 (JANUARY 9, 1980).
 
    /6/ SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART,
 AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (B) TO ASSIGN WORK . . . (.)
 
    /7/ AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR
 FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, CASE NO.
 0-NG-40, 2 FLRA NO. 77 (JANUARY 31, 1980), AT 20 OF THE DECISION;  AND
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNION, LOCAL 19 AND NATIONAL LABOR
 RELATIONS BOARD, REGION 19, CASE NO. 0-NG-131, 2 FLRA NO. 98 (MARCH 7,
 1980), AT 3 OF THE DECISION.
 
 
 

---