13:0549(92)CU - 934th Tactical Airlift Group (AFRES), Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Minneapolis, MN and Local 1997, AFGE -- 1983 FLRAdec RP



[ v13 p549 ]
13:0549(92)CU
The decision of the Authority follows:


 13 FLRA No. 92
 
 934th TACTICAL AIRLIFT GROUP (AFRES),
 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL
 AIRPORT, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 LOCAL 1997, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, AFL-CIO
 Petitioner
 
                                            Case No. 5-CU-20007
 
                    DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT
 
    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, the Authority finds:  Local 1997, American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) was recognized on
 March 27, 1963 as the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of
 all current and future eligible Department of Air Force employees in the
 Minneapolis-St. Paul commuting area who are serviced by the Central
 Civilian Personnel Office, 934th Tactical Airlift Group, Minneapolis,
 Minnesota and paid from appropriated funds.  Essentially, the petition
 seeks to clarify the bargaining unit status of numerous employees based
 on the Activity's allegation that they are supervisors, management
 officials, professional employees, or employees engaged in Federal
 personnel work in other than a purely clerical capacity.  /1/
 
    SUPERVISORS
 
    The Activity contends that John Vlahos, Flight Instructor (Safety
 Officer), GM-2181-13;  Charles Borgeson, Flight Instructor, GM-2181-13;
 and John McCormack, Freight Loader, WG-6968-09 are supervisors within
 the meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute and should be excluded
 from the unit.  /2/ Of these the record establishes that McCormack
 assigns and directs the work of subordinates and that such duties are
 not merely routine or clerical in nature, but require the consistent
 exercise of independent judgment.  Accordingly, McCormack is a
 supervisor within the meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute and
 should be excluded from the unit.  The Authority further find that as
 Vlahos and Borgeson do not exercise any of the statutory indicia of
 supervisory authority, they are not supervisors within the meaning of
 section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute.
 
    MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS
 
    The Activity contends that John Vlahos, Flight Instructor (Safety
 Officer, GM-2181-13;  Charles Borgeson, Flight Instructor, GM-2181-13;
 Conrad Skladal, Navigator (Instructor), GS-2181-12;  Douglas Pederson,
 Navigator (Instructor), GS-2181-11;  Mark Davidson, Command Post
 Assistant, GS-303-07;  and Hilary Schyma, Plans and Mobility Technician,
 GS-303-09 are management officials within the meaning of section
 7103(a)(11) of the Statute and should be excluded from the unit.  /3/ In
 the lead case of Department of the Navy, Automatic Data Processing
 Selection Office, 7 FLRA 172 (1981), the Authority interpreted the
 statutory definition of "management official" to include those
 individuals who:  (1) create, establish or prescribe general principles,
 plans, or courses of action for an agency;  (2) decide upon or settle
 upon general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency;  or
 (3) bring about or obtain a result as to the adoption of general
 principles, plans or courses of action for an agency.  Applying these
 criteria to the instant case, the Authority finds that John Vlahos,
 Charles Borgeson and Conrad Skladal are management officials and shall
 order their exclusion from the bargaining unit.  Thus, the record
 establishes that Vlahos, the Activity's Safety Officer, has developed
 Activity policy in the areas of flying, munitions and ground safety
 including the Explosive Safety program, Weather Warning procedures in
 the form of AFRES Base Regulation 55-1, the Disabled Damaged Aircraft
 Recovery Plan and the Personal Safety Protection Equipment and Clothing
 program.  Additionally, on his own authority, he may make expenditures
 for the purchase of safety equipment and clothing.  Borgeson is
 responsible for the establishment of certain long and short term local
 flying operating policies for the Activity, including 934th TAG
 Supplement 1 to MAC Regulation 55-130, Chapter 10.  Such local operating
 policies reflect substantial deviations from Air Force policy and are
 necessitated by the uniqueness of the Activity which is not collocated
 with an active duty unit, owns its own planes, and operates out of a
 civilian airport where it is directly involved in civilian air traffic.
 Skladal has established numerous Activity policies and regulations in
 the area of navigation including the evaluation criteria used in testing
 navigation skill and the procedures used in training navigators in
 tactical, low level navigation.  It follows that the responsibilities of
 all three of these employees require and authorize them to formulate,
 determine or influence the policies of the Activity within the meaning
 of section 1703(a)(11) as interpreted by the Authority.
 
    With respect to the other alleged management officials, the Authority
 finds that they are employees whose actions assist in implementing, as
 opposed to shaping, the Activity's policies.  Thus, the record is clear
 that these incumbents are not management officials in that they do not
 exercise any duties or responsibilities which require or authorize them
 to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the Activity
 within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute.  Accordingly,
 the Authority finds that these incumbents should be included in the
 recognized bargaining unit.
 
    EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN A
 PURELY
 CLERICAL CAPACITY
 
    The Activity contends that Michael Burns, Military Personnel
 Technician, GS-204-08 should be excluded from the recognized unit on the
 grounds that he is engaged in Federal personnel work in other than a
 purely clerical capacity within the meaning of section 7112(b)(3) of the
 Statute.  Mr. Burns is the chief of the Personnel Systems Management
 Branch in the Military Personnel office and is responsible for
 management of the data base for military personnel.  He handles the
 military rosters for the units on the base and makes sure than all
 information is accurate and kept up to date.
 
    Based on the above, the Authority finds that Burns is not engaged in
 personnel work within the meaning of the Statute and should be included
 in the recognized unit.  While it may be true that Burns does perform
 work related to personnel matters for his employing agency, the work is
 involved with the records of military personnel who are specifically
 excluded by section 7103(a)(2) of the Statute from the definition of
 "employee" and cannot be included in any bargaining unit under the
 State.  Accordingly, the Authority finds that Burns is not engaged in
 the kind of work which would give rise to a co