Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3313, AFL-CIO (Petitioner); Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Washington, DC (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3313, AFL-CIO (Petitioner) 

 5 FLRA No. 89
 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 Agency
 
 and
                                            Case No. 3-UC-3
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3313, AFL-CIO
 Petitioner
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RESEARCH
 AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3313, AFL-CIO
 Petitioner
 
                                            Case Nos. 3-CU-8, 
                                            3-CU-9
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    UPON PETITIONS DULY FILED WITH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 UNDER SECTION 7111(B)(2) AND SECTION 7112(D) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7101-7135, A CONSOLIDATED
 HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE HEARING OFFICERS OF THE AUTHORITY.  THE
 AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE HEARING OFFICERS' 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 BOTH
 PARTIES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:
 
    THE PETITIONER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 3313, AFL-CIO, FILED THE INSTANT UNIT CONSOLIDATION (UC) PETITION
 SEEKING TO CONSOLIDATE THE FIVE UNITS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF
 TRANSPORTATION (DOT) FOR WHICH IT IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND A
 UNIT WITHIN DOT FOR WHICH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (AFGE NATIONAL) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  /1/
 THE UNITS PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER INCLUDE:  (1) ALL THE
 HEADQUARTERS NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
 TRANSPORTATION (OST), EXCLUDING PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, WAGE GRADE
 EMPLOYEES IN THE BINDERY UNIT, PUBLICATIONS AND GRAPHICS DIVISION, AND
 THE REMAINING WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLICATIONS AND GRAPHICS
 DIVISION;  (2) ALL THE HEADQUARTERS PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE URBAN
 MASS TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (UMTA);  AND (5) THE HEADQUARTERS
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF UMTA.  AFGE NATIONAL REPRESENTS A UNIT OF ALL
 THE NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, NATIONWIDE, OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
 TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA), WHICH WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
 PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT.  THE PETITIONER ALSO CLAIMS TO REPRESENT THE
 HEADQUARTERS PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES IN THE RESEARCH
 AND SPECIAL PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION (RSPA) OF THE DOT IN THE SEPARATE
 OST UNITS OUTLINED ABOVE.  THE RSPA WAS CREATED FROM ELEMENTS OF THE OST
 IN 1977, AND, IN FILING THE INSTANT CLARIFICATION OF UNIT (CU) PETITIONS
 HEREIN, THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO CLARIFY ITS OST UNITS SO AS TO INCLUDE
 THE APPROPRIATE RSPA EMPLOYEES.  IF THE AUTHORITY AGREES THAT THE RSPA
 EMPLOYEES ARE PROPERLY PART OF ITS OST UNITS, THE PETITIONER WOULD
 INCLUDE THEM IN THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT.
 
    THE DOT CONTENDS THAT THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT IS NOT
 APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION BECAUSE IT DOES
 NOT MEET THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 7112(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 /2/ ITS PRIMARY CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD IS THAT EACH OF THE
 "ADMINISTRATIONS" WITHIN DOT IS A FUNCTIONALLY UNIQUE ENTITY WHICH IS
 RESPONSIBLE FOR A DISTINCT MISSION AND WHICH HAS BEEN DELEGATED
 INDEPENDENT CONTROL OF ITS OWN PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS FUNCTIONS.
 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DOT CONTENDS THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 PROPER CONSOLIDATED UNIT HAVE NO COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WHICH TRANSCENDS
 THE ADMINISTRATION WHICH EMPLOYS THEM.  THE AGENCY FURTHER CONTENDS THAT
 THE INDEPENDENCE OF ITS ADMINISTRATIONS PRECLUDES EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND
 THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AGENCY'S OPERATIONS IN THE PROPOSED UNIT, AS THERE
 WOULD BE NO APPROPRIATE NEXUS OF AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGOTIATING
 WITH THE PETITIONER UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
 
    THE PETITIONER'S PRIMARY CONTENTION IS THAT MANY OF THE ISSUES OF
 CONCERN TO THE EMPLOYEES IT REPRESENTS ARE NOT DELIMITED BY THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LINES WHICH PRESENTLY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS UNITS, AND THAT
 THE CONSOLIDATED UNIT WHICH IT SEEKS HEREIN, WILL ALLOW BOTH IT AND THE
 DOT TO HAVE A MORE EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP.  THE
 PETITIONER FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE CONSOLIDATED UNIT MEETS THE
 CRITERIA FOR UNIT APPROPRIATENESS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 7112(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE.  WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNITY OF INTEREST, THE PETITIONER
 CONTENDS THAT THE EMPLOYEES IT REPRESENTS HAVE A COMMON MISSION WITHIN
 THE DOT, THAT THEY SHARE ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR WORKING CONDITIONS WITHIN
 THE WASHINGTON, D.C., AREA, THAT THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY COMMON GRIEVANCE
 AND APPEALS PROCEDURES AVAILABLE TO THEM, THAT THERE IS A COMMONALITY OF
 JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND WORK EXPERIENCES, AND THAT THERE ARE ANY NUMBER
 OF OTHER WORKING CONDITIONS WHICH THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PROPOSED UNIT
 HAVE IN COMMON.  THE PETITIONER FURTHER CONTENDS THAT EFFECTIVE DEALINGS
 AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AGENCY'S OPERATIONS WILL BE ENHANCED WHEN MANY
 ISSUES WHICH CROSS ADMINISTRATIVE LINES OF JURISDICTION CAN BE
 NEGOTIATED UNIFORMLY AND THAT THE DOT'S CENTRALIZED PERSONNEL AND LABOR
 RELATIONS PERSONNEL ARE EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THE CONSOLIDATED UNIT
 SOUGHT.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE CU PETITION, THE DOT CONTENDS THAT THE RSPA IS
 FUNCTIONALLY AND ORGANIZATIONALLY UNIQUE AND THAT IT WOULD BE
 INAPPROPRIATE AND INEFFICIENT TO REQUIRE THE MANAGEMENT OF OST AND RSPA
 TO JOINTLY ADMINISTER A LABOR RELATIONS PROGRAM FOR UNITS ENCOMPASSING
 THE EMPLOYEES OF BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS.  IN THE PETITIONER'S VIEW, RSPA
 WAS, IN EFFECT, CARVED OUT OF OST, THE RSPA EMPLOYEES ARE STILL SERVICED
 BY THE OST'S PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS OFFICES, THE EMPLOYEES SHARE
 THE SAME GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES, AND THERE IS A REGULAR AND RECURRING
 INTERCHANGE OF EMPLOYEES BETWEEN THE TWO ADMINISTRATIONS, ALL OF WHICH
 INDICATES A CONTINUING COMMUNITY OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    BACKGROUND AND FACTS
 
    THE DOT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING THE OVERALL TRANSPORTATION
 POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.  DOT IS MADE UP OF NINE ADMINISTRATIONS --
 THE OST AND EIGHT OPERATING ADMINISTRATIONS WITH FUNCTIONAL
 RESPONSIBILITIES.  THE HEADQUARTERS OPERATION OF DOT, WHICH IS HEADED BY
 THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, IS LOCATED WITHIN WASHINGTON, D.C.  OST
 PROVIDES STAFF CAPABILITIES FOR THE SECRETARY, INCLUDING SUCH FUNCTIONAL
 AREAS AS POLICY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, BUDGET, ADMINISTRATION,
 GOVERNMENTAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, LEGAL COUNSEL AND REGIONAL
 REPRESENTATION IN DOT'S TEN REGIONAL OFFICES.  AS NOTED ABOVE, THE
 PETITIONER CLAIMS TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES IN OST AND FOUR OF DOT'S
 OPERATING ADMINISTRATIONS -- THE COAST GUARD, UMTA, NHTSA, AND RSPA.
 ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE FOUR OPERATING COMPONENTS OF DOT NOT AFFECTED BY
 THE INSTANT PETITION, WHICH INCLUDE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
 (FAA), THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA), THE FEDERAL RAILROAD
 ADMINISTRATION (FRA) AND THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
 (SLSDC).  ALL OF THESE EIGHT COMPONENTS HAVE THEIR HEADQUARTERS
 OPERATIONS WITHIN WASHINGTON, D.C., EXCEPT FOR SLSDC, WHICH IS
 HEADQUARTERED IN MASSENA, NEW YORK.  EACH COMPONENT ALSO HAS VARYING
 NUMBERS OF FIELD EMPLOYEES, WITH THE EXTREMES INDICATING THAT 90% OF
 OST'S EMPLOYEES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE WASHINGTON, D.C., AREA, WHILE 90%
 OF FAA'S EMPLOYEES ARE IN THE FIELD.
 
    THE LATEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE DOT HAS SOME 71,000
 CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.  THE FIVE ADMINISTRATIONS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN
 THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT HAVE APPROXIMATELY 9,600 CIVILIAN
 EMPLOYEES, WITH SOME 3,500 OF THOSE BEING EMPLOYED IN HEADQUARTERS
 OPERATIONS.  THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE FOUR ADMINISTRATIONS EXCLUDED FROM
 THE PRESENT UNIT EMPLOY SOME 4,200 CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.  BROADLY
 SPEAKING, UMTA DEALS WITH MASS TRANSIT MATTERS, THE COAST GUARD ENFORCES
 FEDERAL LAWS OF THE SEAS AND WATERS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
 STATES, NHTSA IS INVOLVED WITH PROGRAMS AIMED AT REDUCING AUTOMATIVE
 FUEL CONSUMPTION AND ACCIDENTS, RSPA PLANS AND MANAGES PROGRAMS IN
 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND OST'S MISSION IS DESCRIBED
 ABOVE.  THE ADMINISTRATIONS OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY, SUBJECT ONLY TO BROAD
 CONTROLS BY THE SECRETARY, DOT.  EACH OF THE OPERATING ADMINISTRATIONS
 WITHIN DOT HAS AN INDEPENDENT PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS OFFICE,
 EXCEPT FOR RSPA, WHICH IS BEING SERVICED BY THE OST PERSONNEL OPERATIONS
 DIVISION WHILE IT DEVELOPS ITS OWN RESOURCES.  EACH OF THE OPERATING
 ADMINISTRATIONS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND EXCEPT FOR RSPA, ACTUALLY
 MANAGES ON A DAILY BASIS, ITS OWN HIRING, FIRING, TRANSFER, AREAS OF
 CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION AND REDUCTIONS IN FORCE AFFECTING MOST UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, GRIEVANCE HANDLING, AND NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
 LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS AGREEMENTS.  WHILE THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
 AND TRAINING IN OST HAS DOT-WIDE RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO
 PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS MATTERS, THE RECORD ESTABLISHED THAT
 85-90% OF THE POLICIES IN THOSE AREAS ARE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENTLY BY THE
 ADMINISTRATIONS AND THAT THE POLICIES ESTABLISHED BY THE DOT OFFICE OF
 PERSONNEL ARE USUALLY DERIVATIVE OF POLICIES REQUIRED BY THE OFFICE OF
 PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, OR OTHER
 OUTSIDE AGENCIES.
 
    ESSENTIALLY, THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING A UNIT OF THE HEADQUARTERS
 EMPLOYEES OF FIVE ADMINISTRATIONS, WITH SOME 90 FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE
 NHTSA ALSO INCLUDED.  EXCEPT FOR THE NHTSA FIELD EMPLOYEES, THE OTHER
 EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED UNIT WORK IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY TO
 EACH OTHER WITHIN WASHINGTON, D.C.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY
 SHARE SUCH COMMON FACILITIES AS CAFETERIAS, CREDIT UNIONS, PARKING
 SPACES, ETC.  WHILE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, BOTH
 CLERICAL AND NONCLERICAL, WHICH ARE COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE OF THE
 AFFECTED ADMINISTRATIONS, THERE ARE MANY EMPLOYEES WHOSE SKILLS,
 TRAINING, AND EXPERIENCE ARE SUCH THAT THEIR PRIMARY OPPORTUNITIES FOR
 TRANSFER OR PROMOTION ARE WITHIN A PARTICULAR ADMINISTRATION.  WHILE THE
 RECORD INDICATED THERE IS SOME INTERCHANGE OF EMPLOYEES BETWEEN THE
 ADMINISTRATIONS INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED UNIT, IT ALSO DISCLOSES A
 GREATER NUMBER OF INSTANCES OF INTERCHANGE BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIONS
 INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED UNIT AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS WITHIN THE DOT.
 THUS, WITHIN THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 1978 THROUGH MAY 1979, 45 EMPLOYEES
 WHO WERE HIRED BY ONE OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS WITHIN THE PROPOSED UNIT
 CAME FROM ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE PROPOSED UNIT, WHILE 59
 EMPLOYEES WERE HIRED FROM ONE OF THE OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS WITHIN DOT
 WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE PROPOSED UNIT.
 
    AS NOTED ABOVE, THE PETITIONER AND THE AFGE NATIONAL REPRESENT
 EMPLOYEES IN SIX UNITS WHICH WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED
 CONSOLIDATED UNIT.  THE PETITIONER HAS A SINGLE AGREEMENT, DATED JUNE
 18, 1975, COVERING BOTH ITS PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL UNITS IN
 UMTA AND AN AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 27, 1974, COVERING ITS
 NONPROFESSIONAL OST UNIT.  AFGE NATIONAL HAS AN AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY
 19, 1974, COVERING THE NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE NHTSA.  ALL OF
 THESE AGREEMENTS APPEAR TO BE STILL IN EFFECT.  AS NOTED ABOVE, CERTAIN
 BINDERY EMPLOYEES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE PETITIONER'S NONPROFESSIONAL OST
 UNIT AND THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES IN NHTSA ARE APPARENTLY
 UNREPRESENTED.  OF THE 33 EXCLUSIVE UNITS COVERING COAST GUARD EMPLOYEES
 IN VARIOUS FIELD FACILITIES, AFGE AFFILIATES REPRESENT 15.  THE FIELD
 EMPLOYEES OF OST, UMTA AND RSPA ARE APPARENTLY UNREPRESENTED.  THE
 PATTERN OF REPRESENTATION IN THE FOUR DOT ADMINISTRATIONS NOT INCLUDED
 IN THE PROPOSED UNIT IS ALSO IRREGULAR.  IN FAA, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH
 EMPLOYS SOME 75% OF DOT'S CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, THERE ARE NATIONWIDE UNITS
 OF THE FLIGHT SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIALISTS
 REPRESENTED BY THE PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION
 (PATCO) AND A NATIONWIDE UNIT OF AIRWAYS FACILITIES DIVISION EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL
 ASSOCIATION (FASTA) AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHER UNITS AT INDIVIDUAL
 FACILITIES, WHILE THE REPRESENTATION OF HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES IS
 LIMITED TO A FEW SMALL UNITS.  AFGE LOCAL 2814 REPRESENTS ALL THE
 NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE FRA, EXCLUDING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
 ALASKA RAILROAD.  AFGE LOCAL 1968 REPRESENTS THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SLSDC,
 WHICH HAS ITS HEADQUARTERS IN MASSENA, NEW YORK. WHILE THERE ARE
 SCATTERED REPRESENTED UNITS OF FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE FHWA, NONE OF ITS
 HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES ARE REPRESENTED.
 
    THE PETITIONS TO CLARIFY UNITS
 
    THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE PETITIONER WAS CERTIFIED AS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A UNIT OF GENERAL SCHEDULE AND WAGE GRADE
 EMPLOYEES, OST HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C., IN 1971 AND FOR A UNIT OF
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME ACTIVITY IN 1974.  THE PARTIES SIGNED
 A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT COVERING THE EMPLOYEES IN THE NONPROFESSIONAL
 UNIT, DATED FEBRUARY 27, 1974, WHICH IS PRESUMABLY STILL IN EFFECT. IN
 1975, DOT CREATED THE MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION BUREAU (MTB) FROM ELEMENTS
 OF OST, ASSIGNING TO IT RESPONSIBILITY FOR PIPELINE SAFETY AND HAZARDOUS
 MATERIALS.  MTB WAS ORGANIZATIONALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER DOT
 ADMINISTRATIONS.  IN 1977, IN AN EFFORT TO REMOVE ALL LINE OR OPERATING
 CAPABILITIES FROM OST, RSPA WAS CREATED.  MTB WAS THE CORE FOR THE NEW
 RSPA, WITH OTHER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITIES FROM OST AND
 OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS ADDED ON.  OTHER LINE RESPONSIBILITIES WERE
 REMOVED FROM OST AND ADDED TO THE APPROPRIATE LINE ADMINISTRATIONS
 WITHIN DOT.  IN EXCESS OF 500 EMPLOYEES WERE TRANSFERRED FROM OST AT THE
 TIME OF RSPA'S CREATION.  THIS NUMBER PRESUMABLY INCLUDES MTB EMPLOYEES
 WHO BECAME PART OF RSPA.  IN ANY EVENT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE
 EMPLOYEES WERE REASSIGNED TO RSPA, WITH THE REMAINDER GOING TO THE OTHER
 LINE ADMINISTRATIONS.
 
    RSPA IS AN INDEPENDENT LINE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DOT, WITH FULL
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS OWN OPERATIONS, INCLUDING PERSONNEL AND LABOR
 RELATIONS MATTERS.  WHILE RSPA EMPLOYEES ARE STILL SERVICED BY THE OST
 PERSONNEL OFFICE, THE FINAL DECISIONS REGARDING RSPA EMPLOYEES LIE WITH
 WITH RSPA MANAGEMENT AND THERE ARE TWO RSPA EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE
 OST PERSONNEL OFFICE TO SERVICE ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE EVIDENCE INDICATES
 NO GREATER DEGREE OF INTERCHANGE AND PROFESSIONAL INTERACTION OCCURS
 BETWEEN OST AND RSPA EMPLOYEES THAN OCCURS BETWEEN RSPA EMPLOYEES AND
 THOSE OF ANY OF THE OTHER DOT ADMINISTRATIONS.
 
    UNDER THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE
 RSPA EMPLOYEES ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE EXCLUSIVE UNITS OF OST
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER.  IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSIONS,
 THE AUTHORITY IS COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT THE RSPA IS A SEPARATE
 ADMINISTRATIVE ARM OF THE DOT, WITH INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT
 TO SUCH MATTERS AS PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES, THAT THERE IS
 A LIMITED AMOUNT OF INTERCHANGE BETWEEN RSPA AND OST EMPLOYEES, THAT THE
 EMPLOYEES REPORT TO DIFFERENT SUPERVISORY HIERARCHIES, AND THAT THE ONLY
 APPROPRIATE LOCUS OF AUTHORITY FOR DEALING WITH A COMBINED RSPA/OST UNIT
 WOULD BE THE SECRETARY, DOT.  IN THE VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY, BASED ON THE
 FACTORS OUTLINED ABOVE, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF COMMUNITY OF
 INTEREST BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES OF THE RSPA AND THE OST TO MEET THE
 CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 7112(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  MOREOVER,
 INASMUCH AS DOT'S OPERATIONS WOULD BE UNNECESSARILY HAMPERED BY
 CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH TWO SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE DOT WOULD BE
 REQUIRED TO JOINTLY ADMINISTER THEIR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIP WITH
 A SINGLE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, THE AUTHORITY FURTHER FINDS THAT THE
 UNIT AS PROPOSED TO BE CLARIFIED WOULD NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS OR
 THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AGENCY'S OPERATIONS.
 
    THE CONSOLIDATION PETITION
 
    SECTION 7112(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, THAT
 THE AUTHORITY SHALL DETERMINE ANY UNIT TO BE APPROPRIATE ONLY IF THE
 DETERMINATION WILL ENSURE A CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST
 AMONG THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT AND WILL PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS
 WITH, AND EFFICIENCY OF THE OPERATIONS OF, THE AGENCY INVOLVED.  THAT
 IS, ANY UNIT DETERMINED TO BE APPROPRIATE MUST MEET THE CRITERIA OF
 COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED AND THE PROMOTION OF
 EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE AGENCY
 INVOLVED.
 
    SECTION 7112(D) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT:
 
    TWO OR MORE UNITS WHICH ARE IN ANY AGENCY AND FOR WHICH A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION IS THE
 
    EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE MAY, UPON PETITION BY THE AGENCY OR LABOR
 ORGANIZATION, BE
 
    CONSOLIDATED WITH OR WITHOUT AN ELECTION INTO A SINGLE LARGER UNIT IF
 THE AUTHORITY CONSIDERS
 
    THE LARGER UNIT TO BE APPROPRIATE.  THE AUTHORITY SHALL CERTIFY THE
 LABOR ORGANIZATION AS THE
 
    EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEW LARGER UNIT.
 
    THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE INCLUDES A STATEMENT BY
 CONGRESSMAN UDALL INDICATING THAT SECTION 7112(D) OF THE STATUTE "SHOULD
 BETTER FACILITATE THE CONSOLIDATION OF SMALL UNITS." /3/
 
    IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE CONSOLIDATION
 PROCEDURE IS ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 7112 OF THE
 STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY, IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A PROPOSED
 CONSOLIDATED UNIT, MUST BE GUIDED BY THE THREE CRITERIA FOR
 APPROPRIATENESS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 7112(A)(1) WHICH WOULD BE APPLIED
 TO ANY OTHER UNIT DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 7112(A)(1) WHICH WOULD BE
 APPLIED TO ANY OTHER UNIT DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 7112 -- A CLEAR
 AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT
 PROPOSED, THE PROMOTION OF EFFECTIVE DEALINGS WITH, AND THE EFFICIENCY
 OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE AGENCY INVOLVED.  THUS, THE STATUTE CONTAINS A
 PROVISION INTENDED TO FACILITATE CONSOLIDATION OF EXISTING SMALL UNITS
 INTO MORE COMPREHENSIVE ONES, PROVIDED THAT THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED
 UNIT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CRITERIA OF 7112(A)(1).
 
    TURNING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE APPROPRIATE UNIT CRITERIA TO THE
 FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE AUTHORITY NOTES AT THE OUTSET THAT THE
 PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT IS PRIMARILY COMPOSED OF EMPLOYEES IN THE
 HEADQUARTERS, DOT, BUT IT WOULD ADDITIONALLY INCLUDE A SMALL NUMBER OF
 FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE NHTSA REPRESENTED BY THE AFGE NATIONAL.  HOWEVER,
 THE PROPOSED UNIT WOULD INCLUDE NO OTHER FIELD EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY
 THE AFGE.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT A
 CONSOLIDATED UNIT COMPOSED OF THE HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES ALONG WITH THE
 FIELD EMPLOYEES SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER WOULD NOT MEET THE APPROPRIATE
 UNIT CRITERIA OF THE STATUTE.  FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNITY OF
 INTEREST, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE CONSOLIDATED UNIT PETITIONED FOR HEREIN
 WOULD INCLUDE THE EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIONS WITHIN
 THE HEADQUARTERS OF DOT WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE
 AFGE NATIONAL, AS WELL AS ALL OF THE NONPROFESSIONAL FIELD EMPLOYEES OF
 ONE OF THESE ADMINISTRATIONS, THE NHTSA, WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY THE AFGE
 NATIONAL AS PART OF A NATIONWIDE UNIT OF NONPROFESSIONAL NHTSA
 EMPLOYEES.  WHILE SOME 2,600 EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE PETITION ARE
 EMPLOYED WITHIN THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE DOT, THERE ARE ONLY SOME 70
 FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE DOT WHO WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED UNIT.
 THE PROPOSED UNIT WOULD ONLY INCLUDE THE FIELD EMPLOYEES OF ONE OF THE
 FOUR /4/ DOT ADMINISTRATIONS WHOSE HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES WOULD BE
 INCLUDED.  MOREOVER, THERE ARE 4,600 FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE OTHER
 ADMINISTRATIONS INVOLVED IN THE PETITION WHO ARE CURRENTLY REPRESENTED
 IN EXCLUSIVE UNITS BUT WHO WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED UNIT.
 THESE EMPLOYEES ARE REPRESENTED IN SOME 33 EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING UNITS,
 WITH THE AFGE OR ONE OF ITS AFFILIATES BEING THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE FOR 15 OF THESE UNITS.  GIVEN THESE FACTS, THE AUTHORITY
 FINDS THAT THE PETITIONED FOR CONSOLIDATED UNIT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
 ONLY A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF THE FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE DOT WITH
 THE MUCH LARGER NUMBER OF NATIONAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES, WOULD NOT ENSURE A
 CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES
 INVOLVED.  NOR WOULD THE PETITIONED FOR UNIT INCLUDE OTHER FIELD
 EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM THE INCLUDED FIELD EMPLOYEES SHARE COMMON INTERESTS.
  FURTHER, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE NHTSA ARE
 GEOGRAPHICALLY AND ORGANIZATIONALLY SEPARATE FROM THE VAST MAJORITY OF
 HEADQUARTERS, DOT EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM THEY WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
 PROPOSED UNIT.
 
    SIMILARLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT IT WOULD NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE
 DEALINGS TO REQUIRE DOT MANAGEMENT TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE INTERESTS
 OF SUCH A SMALL NUMBER OF FIELD EMPLOYEES IN THE CONTEXT OF NEGOTIATIONS
 FOR WHAT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY A UNIT OF HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES, NOR
 WOULD EFFECTIVE DEALINGS BE PROMOTED IF DOT MANAGEMENT WERE TO BE
 REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE AN AGENCY-WIDE AGREEMENT WITH AN EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE WHO WOULD BE REPRESENTING SUCH A SMALL SEGMENT OF ITS
 FIELD EMPLOYEES.  FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AGENCY'S OPERATIONS
 WOULD NOT BE PROMOTED WERE IT REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE WITH AN EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE IN A UNIT THAT WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO ITS
 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AS ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF FIELD EMPLOYEES AND
 THE HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES IN ONLY FOUR OF DOT'S NINE ADMINISTRATIONS
 WOULD BE INCLUDED THEREIN.  THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE
 PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT WOULD NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS WITH,
 AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE OPERATIONS OF, THE DOT.  GIVEN THESE
 CONCLUSIONS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THE PETITIONED FOR CONSOLIDATED UNIT IS
 NOT APPROPRIATE.
 
    HOWEVER, NOTING THAT THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT WOULD PRIMARILY
 CONSIST OF DOT HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL, THE AUTHORITY, IN THE
 ALTERNATIVE, CONSIDERED WHETHER A CONSOLIDATED UNIT CONSISTING ONLY OF
 THE HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER
 EXCLUSIVELY IN THREE OF DOT'S NINE ADMINISTRATIONS -- THE OST, COAST
 GUARD, AND UMTA -- WOULD CONSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE
 OF CONSOLIDATION, /5/ THAT IS, WHETHER SUCH A UNIT SATISFIES THE THREE
 CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 7112(A).  WITH REGARD TO COMMUNITY OF
 INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, THE FACTS REVEAL THAT THE
 ALTERNATIVE UNIT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES OF THREE
 OF THE NINE OPERATING ELEMENTS WHICH CONSTITUTE DOT HEADQUARTERS AND
 THAT SUCH UNIT WOULD CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 2,700 OF THE 7,700
 HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES.  AS WITH THE PROPOSED MIXED HEADQUARTERS/FIELD
 HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES.  AS WITH THE PROPOSED MIXED HEADQUARTERS/FIELD
 UNIT DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ALTERNATIVE UNIT WOULD EXCLUDE SUCH A
 SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF THE HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM THEY
 SHARE COMMON INTERESTS THAT THE RESULTING UNIT WOULD NOT ENSURE A
 SEPARATE AND DISTINCT COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.  IN THIS REGARD, THE
 AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
 PROPOSED UNIT ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY WELL DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE
 ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS WHICH MAKE UP THE HEADQUARTERS, DOT SO AS TO
 CONSTITUTE A MEANINGFUL CONSOLIDATED UNIT OF ALL HEADQUARTERS, DOT
 EMPLOYEES WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER.  THUS, AS NOTED ABOVE,
 EMPLOYEES FROM EACH OF DOT HEADQUARTER'S MAJOR ORGANIZATIONAL
 COMPONENTS
 WOULD NOT BE REPRESENTED IN THE PROPOSED UNIT.
 
    ALTHOUGH THE AUTHORITY WAS COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS SOME
 INTERCHANGE AMONG THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIONS WITHIN
 DOT, THAT THERE ARE SOME COMMON JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND WORKING
 CONDITIONS SHARED BY THESE EMPLOYEES, AND THAT THE PERSONNEL AND LABOR
 RELATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS WHICH MAKE UP DOT ARE SUBJECT TO
 CERTAIN COMMON REGULATIONS, ON BALANCE, IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
 OF THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THERE IS AN INSUFFICIENT
 COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES AT THE HEADQUARTERS LEVEL TO
 COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES AT THE HEADQUARTERS LEVEL TO
 MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN APPROPRIATE UNIT.  IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION
 THE AUTHORITY NOTED AND CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF
 DECISIONS IN SUCH AREAS OF CONCERN TO UNIT PERSONNEL AS HIRING, FIRING,
 PROMOTIONS, TRANSFERS, PRIMARY AREAS OF CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTIONS AND
 REDUCTIONS IN FORCE, THE MAINTENANCE OF PERSONNEL RECORDS, GRIEVANCE
 HANDLING, AND CONTRACT NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION, ARE MADE WITHIN
 EACH PARTICULAR ADMINISTRATION OF DOT.  FURTHER, THE AUTHORITY NOTES
 THAT EACH OF THE THREE ADMINISTRATIONS WHOSE EMPLOYEES WOULD BE INCLUDED
 IN SUCH A PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT HAS AT BOTH HEADQUARTERS AND FIELD
 LEVELS A UNIQUE AND SEPARATE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE WHICH REPORTS DIRECTLY
 TO THE SECRETARY, DOT.  MOREOVER, DUE IN PART TO THE HIGH TURNOVER RATE
 OF MILITARY SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE COAST GUARD, MANY EMPLOYEES THEREIN
 DO NOT HAVE A CONTINUITY OF SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY WHICH WOULD BE
 COMMONLY FOUND IN THE OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS OF DOT.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER TWO CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY SECTION
 7112(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY FIRST FINDS THAT IT WOULD NOT
 PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS TO REQUIRE DOT MANAGEMENT TO NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING THE INTERESTS OF ALL ITS HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES WITH AN
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE WHOSE UNIT IS LIMITED TO EMPLOYEES IN ONLY
 THREE OF THE NINE OPERATING ELEMENTS WITHIN DOT HEADQUARTERS.
 FURTHERMORE, THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE AND
 PERSONNEL AUTHORITY LIES WITH THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF EACH OF
 DOT'S INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATIONS AND NOT WITH DOT'S OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
 AND TRAINING.  THUS, PRIMARY DECISION MAKING IN PERSONNEL AND LABOR
 RELATIONS MATTERS TAKES PLACE WITHIN EACH ADMINISTRATION OF DOT.
 ADDITIONALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND EACH OF THE
 ADMINISTRATIONS WHOSE EMPLOYEES WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED AND THE PARTIES'
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS REFLECT, IN PART, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH OF DOT'S ADMINISTRATIONS.  BASED ON THE ABOVE,
 THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT EFFECTIVE DEALINGS WITH THE AGENCY, AND THE
 EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS, WOULD NOT BE PROMOTED BY THE
 ALTERNATIVE CONSOLIDATED UNIT CONSIDERED.  ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY
 FINDS THAT AN ALTERNATIVE CONSOLIDATED UNIT OF ALL DOT HEADQUARTERS
 PERSONNEL REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PETITIONS IN CASE NOS. 3-UC-3, 3-CU-8
 AND 3-CU-9 BE, AND THEY HEREBY ARE, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 22, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER, III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SEE APPENDIX FOR ORGANIZATION CHART OF DOT.
 
    /2/ SEC. 7112.  DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE UNITS FOR LABOR
 ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATION
 
    (A)(1) THE AUTHORITY SHALL DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY UNIT.
  THE AUTHORITY SHALL DETERMINE IN EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ORDER TO ENSURE
 EMPLOYEES THE FULLEST FREEDOM IN EXERCISING THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER
 THIS CHAPTER, THE APPROPRIATE UNIT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED ON AN AGENCY,
 PLANT, INSTALLATION, FUNCTIONAL, OR OTHER BASIS AND SHALL DETERMINE ANY
 UNIT TO BE AN APPROPRIATE UNIT ONLY IF THE DETERMINATION WILL ENSURE A
 CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 UNIT AND WILL PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS WITH, AND EFFICIENCY OF THE
 OPERATIONS OF, THE AGENCY INVOLVED.
 
    /3/ 124 CONG. REC. H 9634(1978).
 
    /4/ IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY'S FINDING ABOVE THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF
 THE RSPA ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER, THE PROPOSED UNIT WOULD
 INCLUDE THE EMPLOYEES OF FOUR DOT ADMINISTRATIONS.
 
    /5/ THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD CONSIST OF THE EMPLOYEES IN ONLY THESE
 THREE ADMINISTRATIONS AS (1) THE AUTHORITY FOUND ABOVE THAT THE
 EMPLOYEES OF THE RSPA ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER, AND (2)
 SUCH A UNIT WOULD NOT FACE THE DIFFICULTIES PRESENTED BY INCLUDING A
 MIXED UNIT OF FIELD AND HEADQUARTERS OFFICE EMPLOYEES IN A CONSOLIDATED
 UNIT CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES WHICH WAS THE BASIS
 OF THE AUTHORITY'S ABOVE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPOSED UNIT WAS
 INAPPROPRIATE.  THE ALTERNATIVE UNIT WOULD CONSIST ONLY OF THOSE
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER IN UNITS LIMITED TO HEADQUARTERS
 EMPLOYEES.