10:0545(93)CU - Army, Corpus Christi Army Depot and IAM Local Lodge 2049 -- 1982 FLRAdec RP

 10 FLRA No. 93
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT
 Activity/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
 AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 2049
 Labor Organization /1/
 
                                            Case No. 6-CU-25
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    UPON A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION
 7111(B)(2) 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 CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE
 PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, /2/ THE AUTHORITY FINDS:  THE INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 2049 WAS
 RECOGNIZED ON AUGUST 10, 1964, AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE FOR A UNIT OF CERTAIN ACTIVITY EMPLOYEES.  ESSENTIALLY,
 THE ACTIVITY/PETITIONER SEEKS TO DETERMINE HEREIN WHETHER UNION OFFICERS
 AND REPRESENTATIVES WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT ARE ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS
 ALTERNATE OR ACTING SUPERVISORS;  ITS POSITION IS THAT THEY ARE
 INELIGIBLE SINCE SUCH ASSIGNMENTS WOULD RESULT IN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
  DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION MADE A MOTION
 TO DISMISS THE PETITION ALLEGING THAT A PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION OF AN
 EXISTING UNIT (DESIGNATED AS A CU PETITION) IS NOT THE PROPER VEHICLE TO
 USE TO RESOLVE SUCH AN ISSUE.  /3/ THE HEARING OFFICER MADE NO RULING ON
 THE MOTION, BUT RATHER REFERRED IT TO THE AUTHORITY.
 
    THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE GRANTED.
 A CU PETITION IS THE VEHICLE USED IN SEEKING A DETERMINATION AS TO THE
 INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM AN EXISTING BARGAINING
 UNIT.  /4/ AS THE ISSUE HEREIN PERTAINS ONLY TO EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY FOR
 SUPERVISORY ASSIGNMENTS RATHER THAN UNIT PLACEMENT QUESTIONS, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LABOR ORGANIZATION, THAT THE
 PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION HEREIN BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
 DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 24, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE NAMES OF BOTH PARTIES APPEAR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
 
    /2/ NEITHER PARTY FILED A BRIEF.
 
    /3/ WITH REGARD TO ITS MOTION, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION NOTES THAT THE
 ACTIVITY'S REFUSAL TO ASSIGN A UNION OFFICIAL TO A SUPERVISORY POSITION
 IS THE SUBJECT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE FILED BY IT AGAINST
 THE ACTIVITY/PETITIONER (CASE NO. 6-CA-871).
 
    /4/ SEE GENERALLY SECTIONS 2422.1(D) AND 2422.2(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS.