U.S. Department of the Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio




[ v01 p217 ]
01:0217(27)UC
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 27
                                            APRIL 27, 1979
 
 MR. JAMES L. NEUSTADT
 ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 1325 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W.
 WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005
 
 MR. VAL BUXTON, CHIEF
 LABOR AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS DIVISION
 DIRECTORATE OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO 45433
 
                    RE:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE 
                         LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, 
                         OHIO, Assistant Secretary Case 
                         No. 53-10572(UC), FLRC No. 78A-177
 
 GENTLEMEN:
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED YOUR JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
 
    THIS CASE AROSE AS A RESULT OF A PETITION FILED JOINTLY BY THE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (THE UNION) AND THE
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND (THE ACTIVITY) SEEKING TO CONSOLIDATE TWO
 UNITS EXCLUSIVELY REPRESENTED BY THE UNION.  ONE OF THE UNITS CONSISTED
 OF ALL NONSUPERVISORY, NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AT NINE FACILITIES OF
 THE ACTIVITY, AND THE SECOND CONSISTED OF ALL PROFESSIONAL NURSES AT TWO
 OF THE SAME FACILITIES.  NEITHER THE PARTIES NOR THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 PROPOSED UNIT SOUGHT AN ELECTION ON THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED
 CONSOLIDATION.
 
    THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR (RA), CITING THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 COUNCIL'S 1975 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, /1/ FOUND THAT THE ORDER SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES AN ELECTION
 AMONG PROFESSIONALS IN EVERY CASE WHERE A CONSOLIDATION OF UNITS WOULD
 MIX BOTH PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, AND THAT NO
 DISTINCTION IS MADE AS TO THE SIZE OF THE UNITS BEING CONSOLIDATED, NOR
 HAS ANY EXCEPTION BEEN MADE WHEN AN ELECTION WAS RECENTLY HELD ON THE
 SAME ISSUE IN ONE OF THE UNITS SOUGHT TO BE CONSOLIDATED IN THE PROPOSED
 CONSOLIDATION.  ACCORDINGLY, HE FOUND THAT "AN ELECTION AMONG (THE)
 PROFESSIONALS RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF THEIR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION FROM
 THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT IS A NECESSARY PART IN THE PROCESS OF
 COMPLETING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT." HE
 FURTHER FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT THE JOINT PETITIONERS HAD BEEN INFORMED OF
 SUCH REQUIREMENTS BUT REFUSED TO PROCEED TO AN ELECTION AMONG THE
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.  HE THEREFORE DISMISSED THE JOINT PETITION.  THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE RA AND BASED ON HIS
 REASONING, FOUND THAT DISMISSAL OF THE INSTANT PETITION WAS WARRANTED
 AND ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR REVIEW SEEKING REVERSAL
 OF THE RA'S DISMISSAL OF THE PETIT