16:0396(64)NG - AFGE Local 1285 and Air Force, HQ 1606th Air Base Wing (MAC), Kirtland AFB, NM -- 1984 FLRAdec NG
[ v16 p396 ]
16:0396(64)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
16 FLRA No. 64
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1285
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
HEADQUARTERS 1606TH AIR BASE
WING (MAC), KIRTLAND AIR FORCE
BASE, NEW MEXICO
Activity
Case No. O-NG-1053
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
This case is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E)
of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute on a petition
for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union.
From the submissions of the parties, the record before the Authority
in this case indicates that during the course of negotiations, the Union
submitted several proposals concerning employee training on the
Activity's new appraisal and promotion system. Apparently, the Activity
orally declared the Union's proposals to be nonnegotiable, but did not
respond to the Union's written request for an allegation of
nonnegotiability. The Union filed the instant petition for review with
the Authority pursuant to section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, as to whether the disputed proposals were within the duty
to bargain. Subsequently in a letter to the Authority dated October 4,
1984, the Agency withdrew the Activity's allegation of nonnegotiability.
Since the Agency has withdrawn the allegation of nonnegotiability
concerning the Union's proposals, there is no longer an issue as to
whether the proposals in this case are within the parties' duty to
bargain under the Statute.
Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the petition for
review in this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the Union
refiling should the Agency reassert the proposals to be nonnegotiable.
For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., November 8, 1984
Jan K. Bohren
Executive Director/Administrator
ACTION EMPLOYEES UNION,
AFSCME LOCAL 2017
Union
and
ACTION
Agency
Case No. O-NG-1011
(16 FLRA No. 11)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This case is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration
filed by the Union on October 11, 1984, seeking reconsideration of the
Authority's Decision and Order of September 24, 1984. For the reason
set forth below, the motion must be denied.
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, effective
September 10, 1981, provides in pertinent part:
2429.17 Reconsideration.
After a final decision or order of the Authority has been
issued, a party to the proceeding before the Authority who can
establish in its moving papers extraordinary circumstances for so
doing, may move for reconsideration of such final decision or
order. The motion shall be filed within 10 days after service of
the Authority's decision or order . . . .
The Authority's Decision and Order was dated and served on the Union
by mail on September 24, 1984. Therefore, under section 2429.17 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations, and sections 2429.21 and 2429.22,
which are also applicable to the computation of the time limit here
involved, the Union's motion for reconsideration was due in the national
office of the Authority before the close of business on October 9, 1984.
Since, as indicated above, the Union's motion was not filed until
October 11, 1984, it is clearly untimely and must be denied.
Accordingly, for the reason set forth above, the Union's motion for
reconsideration in this case is hereby denied. For the Authority.
Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984
Jan K. Bohren
Executive Director/Administrator
ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE COUNCIL
Union
and
PENNSYLVANIA ARMY AND
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Activity
Case No. O-NG-613
14 FLRA No. 6
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This case is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration
filed by the National Guard Bureau on behalf of the Pennsylvania Army
and Air National Guard on March 29, 1984, seeking, in essence,
reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order of February 13,
1984 in the above entitled matter, as it relates to Union Proposal 1.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion must be denied.
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides in
part, that a party "who can establish . . . extraordinary circumstances
. . . may move for reconsideration" of a decision of the Authority. In
support of its motion for reconsideration, the Agency contends that the
proposal is inconsistent with an Agency regulation and "with policies
expressed throughout the rest of the Federal Government." However, the
Agency did not initially assert these arguments in stating its position
in full pursuant to section 2424.6 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations. Nor was it otherwise apparent from the record that Union
Proposal 1 was outside the Agency's bargaining obligation. In this
latter regard, see the discussion in American Federation of Government
Employees Local 32, AFL-CIO and Office of Personnel Management, 14 FLRA
No. 98 (1984), appeal docketed sub nom. Local 32, AFGE v. FLRA, 84-1250
(D.C. Cir. June 15, 1984), at 2 with respect to the instant case. Thus,
the Agency's motion is merely an effort to raise arguments which could
have been, but were not, previously proffered in the course of the
review proceeding. The Authority concludes that, in light of the above,
the National Guard Bureau has failed to establish the existence of
extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
motion for reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied. Issued,
Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Activity
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Labor Organization/Petitioner
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Labor Organization/Incumbent
Case No. 3-RO-20005
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW
The Petitioner's request for review seeks reversal of the Regional
Director's dismissal of its representation petition filed with the
Authority under section 7111 of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (the Statute), in which it sought to represent a unit
of Attorneys (series 905) who are currently a part of an existing
consolidated bargaining unit of the Social Security Administration
exclusively represented by the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO (the Incumbent). In seeking their severance from the
consolidated bargaining unit, the Petitioner contends that the Office of
Hearings and Appeals Attorneys /1/ are an appropriate unit within the
meaning of section 7112(a)(1) of the Statute, and that the Incumbent has
failed to properly represent the petitioned for employees in the
consolidated bargaining unit. In support of its contention, the
Petitioner submitted affidavits from Attorneys in the petitioned for
unit.
The Regional Director dismissed the petition, noting particularly
that the Petitioner had submitted an insufficient showing of interest
based on the number of employees in the consolidated bargaining unit
and, further, that the evidence was "insufficient to support a failure
to represent on the part of the incumbent or otherwise support the
Petitioner's contention that the unit is no longer appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining."
In its request for review, the Petitioner argues that the Regional
Director applied the wrong standard in determining the adequacy of its
showing of interest. The Authority agrees. The Authority finds that a
petition which seeks to sever a unit of employees from an existing
collective bargaining unit must be accompanied by a 30 percent showing
of interest among the employees in the unit sought in the petition. In
so finding, the Authority notes that section 7111(f)(2) of the Statute
provides in relevant part that exclusive recognition shall not be
accorded to a labor organization "if there is not credible evidence that
at least 30 percent of the employees in the unit specified in the
petition wish to be represented for the purpose of collective bargaining
by the labor organization seeking exclusive recognition(.)" /2/
Accordingly, the Regional Director improperly based his dismissal, in
part, on the Petitioner's insufficient showing of interest with respect
to the overall consolidated unit.
However, the Authority disagrees with the Petitioner's contention
that the Regional Director applied an improper legal standard for
determining whether to conduct a hearing on its petition. Section
7111(b)(2) of the Statute provides in pertinent part that "the Authority
shall investigate the petition, and if it has reasonable cause to
believe that a question of representation exists, it shall provide an
opportunity for a hearing . . . ." In agreement with the Regional
Director, the Authority concludes that the record contains insufficient
evidence to support a failure to represent on the part of the Incumbent
or otherwise to support the Petitioner's contention that the established
unit is no longer appropriate so as to give rise to a question of
representation concerning the petitioned-for unit. Thus, the Authority
finds that the Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable cause to
believe that a question of representation exists so as to warrant a
notice of hearing in this matter.
Accordingly, the request for review, seeking reversal of the Regional
Director's dismissal of the subject representation petition, is hereby
denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
Activity
and
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES
Union
Case No. O-AR-792
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Joseph F. Gentile filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 29, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICE, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, NCSSAFOL-COUNCIL 220
Union
Case No. O-AR-811
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator John E. Sands filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 29, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2110
Union
and
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Activity
Case No. O-AR-827
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Herbert Oestreich filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 29, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE,
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2578
Union
Case No. O-AR-458
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Seymour Strongin filed by the Activity under section 7122(a)
of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Activity has failed to establish that
the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Activity's exceptions are denied. Issued,
Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 12
Union
and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING ADMINISTRATION
Activity
Case No. O-AR-477
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator James M. Harkless filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 30, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1917
Union
and
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Activity
Case No. O-AR-525
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
Arbitrator George Moskowitz filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 30, 1984
Henry B. Frazier, III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
LOCAL 2885, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Union
and
U.S. ARMY, MILITARY TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT COMMAND, EASTERN AREA
Activity
Case No. O-AR-765
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Louis Yagoda filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 30, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482
Union
and
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS,
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA
Activity
Case No. O-AR-783
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Robert D. Steinberg filed by the Union under section 7122(a)
of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 30, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1904
Union
and
U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS
COMMAND, FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY
Activity
Case No. O-AR-813
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Joseph P. Doyle filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 30, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Agency
Case No. O-AR-816
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator George L. Powell filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 30, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Union
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Agency
Case No. O-AR-738
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Justin C. Smith filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Agency has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 31, 1984
Henry B. Frazier, III Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
FORT POLK, LOUISIANA
Activity
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION R5-168
Union
Case No. O-AR-821
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Paul Barron filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 31, 1984
Henry B. Frazier, III Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The Petitioner currently represents, in another unit, all of the
remaining attorneys (series 905) of the Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Social Security Administration.
/2/ See also section 2422.2(a)(9) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations which states: The petition shall be accompanied by a
showing of interest of not less than thirty percent (30%) of the
employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate . . . .