[ v35 p987 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
35 FLRA No. 105
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ARMY ORDNANCE MISSILE AND MUNITIONS CENTER AND SCHOOL
REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
May 2, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by the Union under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Activity did not file an opposition to the Union's application for review.
The Activity filed a petition under section 7111(b) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) seeking to clarify the bargaining unit to exclude eight employees on the ground that they performed security and/or intelligence work which directly affects national security within the meaning of section 7112(b)(6) of the Statute. The Regional Director found that five of these employees performed "security work" within the meaning of section 7112(b)(6) and, therefore, are excluded from the unit. The application seeks review of those findings.
For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Union's application.
II. Background and Regional Director's Decision
The Activity provides education and training to United States and international military and civilian personnel in munitions service support and in support maintenance of missiles and air defense weapons systems. The Union is the exclusive representative of employees in the bargaining unit.
The Activity first sought to clarify the bargaining unit status of 10 positions. During the course of proceedings before the Regional Director, the petition was amended to seek clarification of the bargaining unit status of eight employees occupying three positions. The positions--Security Assistant (Typing), Security Clerk (Typing), and Intelligence Clerk (Typing)--are located in the Activity's Security Division. The Security Division "plans, directs, and coordinates the command security programs for the school," which programs include the security of information, personnel, and operations. Regional Director's Decision at 4. At the time of the hearing in this case, all employees sought to be excluded had either a top secret or a secret security clearance.
The Regional Director concluded that three employees occupying the position of Security Assistant (Typing), one employee occupying the position of Security Clerk (Typing), and one employee in the position of Intelligence Clerk (Typing) were engaged in "security work" within the meaning of section 7112(b)(6) of the Statute because they evaluated information and made recommendations as to security clearances or because they controlled the release of classified information. Regional Director's Decision at 9-10. The Regional Director found, therefore, that those five employees were excluded from the bargaining unit. The remaining three employees, all of whom were Security Clerks (Typing), were found not to perform "security work" and were included in the unit.
III. Application for Review
The Union asserts that the five employees excluded from the unit by the Regional Director do not perform duties which come within the meaning of section 7112(b)(6) of the Statute.
We conclude that no compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's regulations for granting the Union's application for review.
The Union does not allege that the Regional Director's Decision and Order warrants review under any of the grounds set forth in section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Regulations. Moreover, the Union does not support its claim that the employees do not perform security work by any reference to the record or to Authority precedent. The Union's application merely disagrees with the Regional Director's determination that the five employees are engaged in security work within the meaning of section 7112(b)(6) of the Statute and are, therefore, properly excluded from the bargaining unit.
An application for review of a Regional Director's decision may be granted only upon the grounds set forth in section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Regulations. A party filing an application for review should state the grounds upon which it is seeking review, and its application should comply with the requirements contained in section 2422.17 of the regulations. In this case, the Union failed to allege the grounds upon which its application should be granted and provided no basis warranting the granting of its application.
There are no compelling reasons within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) warranting review of the Regional Director's decision in this matter. Accordingly, we will deny the application for review.
The application for review is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)