Michigan Air National Guard, Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan (Activity/Petitioner) and Michigan State Council of The Association of Civilian Technicians (Labor Organization) 

 6 FLRA No. 93
 
 MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD,
 SELFRIDGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE,
 MICHIGAN
 Activity/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 MICHIGAN STATE COUNCIL OF THE
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS
 Labor Organization
 
                                            Case No. 5-CU-24
 
                    DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT
 
    UPON A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 UNDER SECTION 7111(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE (THE STATUTE), A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER OF
 THE AUTHORITY.  THE HEARING OFFICER'S RULINGS MADE AT THE HEARING ARE
 FREE FROM PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING BRIEFS FILED BY BOTH
 PARTIES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:  THE ACTIVITY FILED A PETITION FOR
 CLARIFICATION OF UNIT (CU) SEEKING TO EXCLUDE FROM THE UNIT REPRESENTED
 BY THE MICHIGAN STATE COUNCIL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS
 (HEREINAFTER CALLED ACT), /1/ EIGHT EMPLOYEES IN THE FOLLOWING
 POSITIONS:  PNEUDRAULIC SYSTEMS MECHANIC, WG-6255-11;  AIRCRAFT ORDNANCE
 SYSTEMS MECHANIC, WG-6652-11 (TWO EMPLOYEES);  AIRCRAFT ELECTRICIAN,
 WG-2892-11 (TWO EMPLOYEES);  FABRIC WORKER, WG-3105-1- (TWO EMPLOYEES);
 AND EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE TECHNICIAN, WG-6501-12.  /2/ THE ACTIVITY
 CONTENDS THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN THESE POSITIONS, KNOWN AS SMALL SHOP
 CHIEFS, ARE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE AND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXCLUSIVELY
 RECOGNIZED UNIT ON THAT BASIS.  /3/ THE ACTIVITY FURTHER NOTES THAT NEW
 POSITION DESCRIPTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION WHICH
 OUTLINE THE SUPERVISORY DUTIES THEY HAVE BEEN PERFORMING AS WELL AS
 THOSE WHICH ARE EXPECTED TO BE PERFORMED.  THE ACT ARGUES THAT THE
 INCUMBENTS OF THE POSITIONS ARE NOT SUPERVISORS AND THAT THE PETITION
 MAY HAVE BEEN PREMATURELY FILED BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION HAVE
 NOT BEEN PERFORMING THE DUTIES CONTAINED IN THE NEW POSITION
 DESCRIPTIONS.
 
    THE POSITIONS IN QUESTION ARE LOCATED IN EITHER THE 191ST FIGHTER
 INTERCEPTOR GROUP OR THE 127TH TACTICAL FIGHTER WING OF THE MICHIGAN AIR
 NATIONAL GUARD AT SELFRIDGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, MICHIGAN.  THREE OF
 THE POSITIONS ARE FOUND WITHIN THE AEROSPACE SYSTEM SECTION OF THE CHIEF
 OF MAINTENANCE COMPLEX FOR THE 191ST GROUP.  TWO OF THE POSITIONS ARE
 LOCATED IN THE COUNTERPART ORGANIZATION FOR THE 127TH WING.  EACH
 AEROSPACE SYSTEM SECTION IS HEADED BY A FOREMAN AND IS DIVIDED INTO SIX
 SHOPS.  THE INCUMBENTS OF FIVE OF THE SHOP CHIEF POSITIONS AT ISSUE
 HEREIN ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE TWO AEROSPACE SYSTEM SECTIONS;  EACH OF
 THE FIVE SHOP CHIEF POSITIONS IS ASSIGNED TO A SEPARATE SHOP.  THE
 REMAINING TWO POSITIONS (FABRIC WORKER) ARE FOUND IN THE OPERATIONS
 UNIT, ONE POSITION IN THE 191ST GROUP AND ONE POSITION IN THE 127TH
 WING.  EACH OF THE SHOP CHIEFS IN QUESTION HAS ONE TO THREE OTHER
 EMPLOYEES WORKING IN HIS SHOP, AND IS AT LEAST ONE GRADE HIGHER THAN THE
 OTHER EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO HIS SHOP.
 
    PNEUDRAULIC SYSTEMS MECHANIC, WG-6255-11;  AIRCRAFT ORDNANCE SYSTEMS
 MECHANIC, WG-6652-11;  AIRCRAFT ELECTRICIAN, WG-2892-11
 
    THE FIVE INCUMBENTS OF THESE POSITIONS ARE SHOP CHIEFS IN THE
 AEROSPACE SYSTEM SECTION OF EITHER THE 191ST GROUP OR THE 127TH WING.
 THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE SHOP CHIEFS PERFORM THE SAME DUTIES AS ARE
 PERFORMED BY THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SHOPS.  WORK
 ASSIGNMENTS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE SHOPS, INCLUDING THE SHOP CHIEFS,
 ARE GIVEN BY MAINTENANCE CONTROL WHICH IN MOST INSTANCES ALSO DETERMINES
 THE PRIORITY OF ASSIGNMENTS.  IN SOME SHOPS, THE EMPLOYEES CALL
 MAINTENANCE CONTROL UPON THEIR ARRIVAL AT WORK TO REPORT THEIR
 AVAILABILITY FOR ASSIGNMENTS.  IN OTHER SHOPS, THE SHOP CHIEF WILL PLACE
 THE CALL AND RECEIVE THE ASSIGNMENTS.  THE SHOP CHIEF OF THE ELECTRICAL
 SYSTEMS SHOP IN THE 191ST GROUP ON OCCASION HAS DETERMINED WHICH
 EMPLOYEE WILL BE SENT TO ANOTHER SHOP WHEN ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED, BUT, AS
 THE SHOP CHIEF TESTIFIED, THE EMPLOYEE IS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT HE WILL
 ACCEPT THE ASSIGNMENT AND THEN HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECLINE.
 
    EMPLOYEES IN SEVERAL OF THE SHOPS WORK SHIFTS DIFFERENT FROM THE SHOP
 CHIEFS, ALTHOUGH IN ALL CASES THE SHOP CHIEF IS GENERALLY HELD
 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORK OF THE SHOP.  WHERE SHOP CHIEFS WORK TOGETHER
 WITH EMPLOYEES OF THE SHOP, THERE IS OFTEN MUTUAL INSPECTION OF THE WORK
 COMPLETED.  MOST EMPLOYEES OF EACH SHOP FILL OUT MAINTENANCE DATA
 COLLECTION FORMS WHICH ARE SOMETIMES, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS, REVIEWED BY THE
 SHOP CHIEF FOR ACCURACY.
 
    THE RECORD FURTHER INDICATES THAT NONE OF THE SHOP CHIEFS HAS
 COMPLETED A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION;  NONE HAS MADE AWARD
 RECOMMENDATIONS
 (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE SHOP CHIEF WHO, ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A
 FELLOW EMPLOYEE, WROTE A LETTER SUPPORTING THE PERFORMANCE OF AN
 EMPLOYEE);  NONE HAS HANDLED GRIEVANCES ARISING IN HIS PARTICULAR SHOP;
 AND NONE HAS MADE ANY EFFECTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE
 HIRING AND FIRING OF EMPLOYEES.  IN THIS LATTER REGARD, WHILE THE RECORD
 DISCLOSES ONE INSTANCE IN WHICH A SHOP CHIEF DISCUSSED AN APPLICANT WHO
 WAS INTERVIEWED AND SELECTED BY THE SECTION FOREMAN, NO RECOMMENDATION
 WAS REQUESTED BY OR OFFERED TO THE SECTION FOREMAN ON THAT OCCASION.
 
    WITH REGARD TO DISCIPLINARY MATTERS, ONE SHOP CHIEF REPORTED A MINOR
 PROBLEM CONCERNING THE OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE SHOP TO THE SECTION
 FOREMAN, AND THE LATTER THEN SPOKE WITH THE EMPLOYEE.  ONE OTHER SHOP
 CHIEF MADE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS BUT THEY
 WERE NOT EFFECTUATED.
 
    THE SCHEDULING OF ANNUAL LEAVE IS USUALLY COMPLETED AT THE BEGINNING
 OF THE CALENDAR YEAR AND IS COORDINATED BY THE EMPLOYEES IN THE SHOP,
 INCLUDING THE SHOP CHIEF, TO INSURE THAT NOT ALL EMPLOYEES OF A GIVEN
 SHOP ARE ON LEAVE AT THE SAME TIME.  REQUESTS BY EMPLOYEES FOR SICK OR
 EMERGENCY ANNUAL LEAVE ARE SUBMITTED TO THE SECTION FOREMAN EITHER
 DIRECTLY, PARTICULARLY WHERE EMPLOYEES WORK DIFFERENT SHIFTS THAN THE
 SHOP CHIEFS, OR THROUGH THE SHOP CHIEF TO THE SECTION FOREMAN.  THE
 SECTION FOREMAN RETAINS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE LEAVE,
 ALTHOUGH THE SECTION FOREMAN OF THE 127TH WING INDICATED THAT THE SHOP
 CHIEFS IN THAT ORGANIZATIONAL SEGMENT WILL BE EXPECTED TO AUTHORIZE
 LEAVE IN THE FUTURE.
 
    BASED ON THE RECORD, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE INCUMBENTS OF THESE
 SHOP CHIEF POSITIONS ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE.  THUS, THE EVIDENCE REVEALS THAT THE SHOP
 CHIEFS ARE NOT DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSIGNING WORK, HAVE NOT
 COMPLETED PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OR MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AWARDS,
 HAVE NOT HANDLED GRIEVANCES, HAVE NOT MADE EFFECTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
 WITH REGARD TO HIRING OR DISCIPLINE, HAVE NOT APPROVED LEAVE, AND HAVE
 NOT PERFORMED ANY OTHER INDICIA OF SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY.  UNDER THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE INCUMBENTS OF THESE
 POSITIONS ARE PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED UNIT.
 
    FABRIC WORKER, WG-3105-11
 
    THERE ARE TWO INCUMBENTS OF THIS POSITION CLASSIFICATION-- ONE
 ATTACHED TO THE 191ST GROUP AND ONE WITH THE 127TH WING-- BOTH OF WHOM
 ARE EMPLOYED IN OPERATIONS UNITS AND BOTH OF WHOM REPORT TO AN
 OPERATIONS OFFICER.  THESE TWO SHOP CHIEFS, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER
 EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SHOPS, PROVIDE AIRCREW LIFE SUPPORT
 MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT.  THEIR WORK FOR THE MOST PART IS DIRECTED BY
 OPERATIONS, WHICH DETERMINES THE NUMBER AND SCHEDULE OF FLIGHTS OR
 TRAINING MISSIONS WHICH WILL TAKE PLACE ON ANY GIVEN DAY.  THE WORK
 PERFORMED BY THE EMPLOYEES IN EACH SHOP IS IN SUPPORT OF, AND
 ESSENTIALLY LINKED TO, THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF FLIGHTS SCHEDULED, SO
 THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE AWARE OF THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED AND
 CAN PERFORM SUCH DUTIES IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SHOP CHIEF.  THE SHOP
 CHIEFS THEREFORE PROVIDE VERY LITTLE DIRECTION IN TERMS OF WORK
 ASSIGNMENT.  ONE SHOP CHIEF INDICATED THAT HE HAS DETERMINED WORK
 PRIORITIES, BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES
 AND WITH WHAT FREQUENCY.  THE OTHER SHOP CHIEF INDICATED THAT HE ALSO
 HAS MADE DETERMINATIONS WITH REGARD TO PRIORITY OF ASSIGNMENT, BUT THAT
 HIS DETERMINATIONS ARE GENERALLY OVERRIDDEN.
 
    THE RECORD FURTHER INDICATES THAT EACH OF THE SHOP CHIEFS HAS
 COMPLETED ONE OR TWO PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS ON AN EMPLOYEE, SUCH
 EVALUATION CONSISTING OF CHECKING-OFF A "SATISFACTORY" BOX ON THE
 EVALUATION FORM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER COMMENT.  IN TERMS OF
 HIRING, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT ONE SHOP CHIEF CONDUCTED ONE INTERVIEW
 IN 1972 OR 1973 OF A SINGLE APPLICANT WHO WAS ULTIMATELY HIRED.  THE
 OTHER SHOP CHIEF PARTICIPATED IN TWO SEPARATE HIRING ACTIONS:  IN ONE
 CASE INVOLVING A SINGLE APPLICANT, THE SHOP CHIEF ASKED THAT THE JOB BE
 KEPT VACANT, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS NOT FOLLOWED AND THE APPLICANT
 WAS HIRED;  IN THE OTHER CASE, TWO APPLICANTS, ONE OF WHOM WAS ALREADY
 EMPLOYED ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE SHOP CHIEF WHO
 RECOMMENDED THAT THE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE BE HIRED.  THE TEMPORARY
 EMPLOYEE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CHOSEN BY THE SELECTING OFFICIAL.  THE SHOP
 CHIEFS HAVE NOT HANDLED GRIEVANCES, HAVE MADE NO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
 AWARDS, AND HAVE NOT RECOMMENDED ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
 
    WITH REGARD TO LEAVE MATTERS, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT ONE SHOP
 CHIEF MAY APPROVE EMERGENCY SICK AND ANNUAL LEAVE, BUT THAT HE AND THE
 OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE SOP GENERALLY WORK OUT THE LEAVE SCHEDULE BETWEEN
 THEMSELVES.  THE OTHER SHOP CHIEF MAY APPROVE ANNUAL LEAVE REQUESTS,
 WHILE SICK LEAVE REQUESTS ARE REFERRED TO HIGHER AUTHORITY.
 
    BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE INCUMBENTS OF
 THIS POSITION ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE.  THUS, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF WORK IS SUBSTANTIALLY DETERMINED BY OPERATIONS RATHER THAN
 BY THE SHOP CHIEFS;  THAT, IN ANY EVENT, ALL EMPLOYEES ARE AWARE OF THE
 TASKS WHICH NEED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND CAN ACCOMPLISH THEM IN THE
 ABSENCE OF THE SHOP CHIEF.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT WORK PRIORITY
 RECOMMENDATIONS ARE EFFECTIVE.  WITH REGARD TO HIRING, THE EVIDENCE ALSO
 FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE IMCUMBENTS HAVE MADE EFFECTIVE
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  AS NOTED ABOVE, WHILE ONE SHOP CHIEF'S RECOMMENDATION
 TO HIRE AN APPLICANT WAS FOLLOWED ON ONE OCCASION, THE RECORD INDICATES
 THAT THE CHIEF WAS NOT ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM AMONG A
 NUMBER OF CANDIDATES BUT WAS MERELY ASKED ABOUT THE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO
 WAS EVENTUALLY HIRED.  THEREFORE, THE SMALL SHOP CHIEF DID NOT THEREBY
 "EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND SUCH (HIRING) ACTION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE.  SEE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU,
 MASSACHUSETTS AIR NATIONAL GUARD, 3 FLRA NO. 132(1980).  SIMILARLY, WITH
 REGARD TO THE OTHER SHOP CHIEF, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN TWO SEPARATE HIRING
 ACTIONS, THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT IN ONE INSTANCE THE RECOMMENDATION
 WAS NOT FOLLOWED AND, IN THE OTHER INSTANCE, THE EMPLOYEE WHOM THE SHOP
 CHIEF RECOMMENDED FOR HIRE AND WHO WAS ULTIMATELY SELECTED WAS ALREADY
 EMPLOYED ON A TEMPORARY BASIS.  ACCORDINGLY, IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW,
 NEITHER INSTANCES CONSTITUTES AN EFFECTIVE HIRING RECOMMENDATION AND
 THEREFORE NEITHER IS INDICATIVE OF SUPERVISORY STATUS.  NOR DOES THE
 RECORD CONTAIN ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE INCUMBENTS OF THE FABRIC
 WORKER POSITIONS AT ISSUE HAVE EXERCISED OTHER INDICIA OF SUPERVISORY
 RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE PAST.  /4/
 
    UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE INCUMBENTS OF
 THIS JOB CLASSIFICATION ARE PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE EXCLUSIVELY
 RECOGNIZED UNIT.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED, IN WHICH
 THE MICHIGAN STATE COUNCIL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS
 WAS GRANTED RECOGNITION IN 1969, BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, CLARIFIED BY
 INCLUDING IN THE UNIT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS:
 PNEUDRAULIC SYSTEMS MECHANIC, WG-6255-11;  AIRCRAFT ORDNANCE SYSTEMS
 MECHANIC, WG-6652-11;  AIRCRAFT ELECTRICIAN, WG-2892-11;  AND FABRIC
 WORKER, WG-3105-11.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 31, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ ON MAY 28, 1969, THE ACT WAS GRANTED EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION FOR A
 UNIT CONSISTING OF "ALL NON-SUPERVISORY AND NON-MANAGERIAL WAGE BOARD
 AND CLASSIFIED AIR NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN."
 THE PARTIES' CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DEFINES THE UNIT AS
 ALL TECHNICIAN PERSONNEL EMPLOYED BY THE MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD
 EXCEPT EMPLOYEES EXCLUDED BY LAW.
 
    /2/ AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING IN THIS MATTER, THE POSITION OF
 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE TECHNICIAN, WG-6501-12, WAS VACANT.  IN DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF THE MINT, U.S. MINT, DENVER, COLORADO, 6 FLRA
 NO. 17 (1981), THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT IT WOULD NOT RESOLVE ISSUES
 INVOLVING VACANT POSITIONS INASMUCH AS "RELIANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE PLACED
 ON SUCH EVIDENCE AS WRITTEN POSITION DESCRIPTIONS OR TESTIMONY AS TO
 WHAT THE DUTIES HAD BEEN OR WOULD BE, WHICH EVIDENCE MIGHT NOT
 ACCURATELY REFLECT THE ACTUAL DUTIES PERFORMED BY THE IMCUMBENTS WHEN
 THE VACANCIES ARE FILLED." UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY
 MAKES NO FINDING HEREIN WITH REGARD TO THE POSITION OF EXPLOSIVE
 ORDNANCE TECHNICIAN, WG-6501-12.
 
    /3/ SECTION 7103(A)(10) PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (10) "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. . . .
 
    /4/ WHILE THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE INCUMBENTS MAY HAVE PREPARED
 PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OR APPROVED LEAVE ON OCCASION, SUCH DUTIES WERE
 INTERMITTENT AND ARE NOT IN AND OF THEMSELVES A DETERMINANT OF
 SUPERVISORY STATUS.