---

51 FLRA No. 115

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, PUGET SOUND

BREMERTON, WASHINGTON

(Activity/Petitioner)

and

BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL

AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

SF-AC-50070

_____

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

FLEET AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER, PUGET SOUND

BREMERTON, WASHINGTON

(Activity/Petitioner)

and

BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL

AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization/Intervenor)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1931, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization/Intervenor)

SF-CU-50071

_____

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AN

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

June 24, 1996

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz and Donald S. Wasserman, Members.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by the Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Puget Sound, Bremerton, Washington (Activity) under section 2422.17 of the Authority's Regulations.⁽¹⁾ The Activity seeks review of the Decision and Order of the Regional Director (RD) granting in part and denying in part its petition concerning the bargaining unit status of two groups of employees following a reorganization. No opposition to the application for review has been filed.

The RD found that one group of affected employees, located at Everett, Washington (Everett Detachment), accreted into the unit sought by the petition for unit clarification (CU) filed by the Activity. The RD concluded that a second group of affected employees, located at Concord, California (Concord Detachment), did not accrete into that unit because the Activity was a successor employer. In its application for review, the Activity challenges the RD's decision with respect to the Concord Detachment employees as inconsistent with Authority precedent and based on an erroneous interpretation of certain facts. According to the Activity, the RD relied "too heavily" upon the current Authority precedent for determining successorship, as set forth in Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, California, 50 FLRA 363 (1995) (Port Hueneme) and the RD's "literal application" of Port Hueneme will lead to an increased number of bargaining units and "government inefficiency." Application for Review at 2-3.

The Activity also claims that the RD's decision ignores those factors relied on in finding an accretion as to the Everett Detachment employees and that the RD's decision is in "total contradiction" to that rendered by the RD in United States Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, Case Nos. WA-CU-50061 and WA-CU-50062 (FISC Norfolk) (decision attached), currently pending before the Authority. Application for Review at 2. In FISC Norfolk, the RD resolved issues arising out of a reorganization in the Department of the Navy that are similar to those before the RD in this case. However, in contrast to the Concord Detachment, the bargaining unit status of the transferred employees in FISC Norfolk was resolved by applying accretion principles.

We conclude that compelling reasons exist for granting the application for review in this case and the applications in FISC Norfolk under section 2422.17(c)(1) of our Regulations because of the absence of, or a departure from, Authority precedent. Therefore, we grant the Activity's application for review. By separate order issued today, we are also granting the applications for review in FISC Norfolk. In order to ensure that the issues presented in both cases can be addressed in a consistent manner and to further clarify the application, in cases involving reorganizations, of the accretion principles set forth in U.S. Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 47 FLRA 602, 610 (1993) and the successorship principles set forth in Port Hueneme, we direct the parties in both cases to address the following question:

In a representation case arising from a reorganization where both successorship and accretion principles are claimed to apply to the same employees, how should the Authority resolve the representation issues raised by the petitions?

We further find that the petitioner has not demonstrated the RD's decision on certain factual issues is clearly erroneous or prejudicially affected the rights of any party under section 2422.17(c)(4) of the Authority's Regulations. Accordingly, we deny the application for review with respect to this matter.

In accordance with section 2422.17(g) of the Authority's Regulations, the parties are directed to file briefs, within 30 days of the date of this Order, on the issues set forth above.⁽²⁾ Briefs should be directed to:

James H. Adams, Acting Director, Case Control Office
Federal Labor Relations Authority
607 14th Street, NW, Room 415
Washington, D.C. 20424-0001

---

---

---

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

1. This refers to the Regulations in effect when this case was filed. The revised representation regulations that became effective on March 15, 1996, apply only to petitions filed on or after that date.

2. We have on our own motion extended the normal 10-day period set forth in section 2422.17(g) of the Regulations during which the parties may file briefs.

---