Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration, SSA Cincinnati, Ohio and SSA Covington, Kentucky

 



[ v01 p423 ]
01:0423(51)AS
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 51
                                            JUNE 11, 1979
 
 MR. CHARLES G. SMITH, JR.
 PRESIDENT, LOCAL 75
 NATIONAL FEDERATION
 OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 P. O. BOX 1901
 CINCINNATI, OHIO 45201
 
                             RE:  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION 
                                  AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY 
                                  ADMINISTRATION, SSA CINCINNATI, 
                                  OHIO AND SSA COVINGTON, KENTUCKY, 
                                  Assistant Secretary Case No. 
                                  53-10663(UC), Case No. 0-AS-4
 
 DEAR MR. SMITH:
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION, AND THE AGENCY'S OPPOSITION THERETO,
 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
 
    IN THIS CASE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 75 (THE
 UNION) FILED A PETITION SEEKING TO CONSOLIDATE TWO UNITS OF
 NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES WITHIN SEPARATE REGIONS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION (SSA) FOR WHICH THE UNION HAD BEEN CERTIFIED AS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  SSA OPPOSED THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT ON
 THE BASIS THAT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN
 SECTION 10(B) OF THE ORDER.
 
    THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR (RA) FOUND THAT "THE PETITION FOR
 CONSOLIDATED UNIT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN (S)ECTION
 10(B) OF THE ORDER AND IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION." IN SO FINDING, THE RA STATED:
 
    (T)HE PETITION FOR CONSOLIDATED UNIT WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE
 CONSOLIDATION OF TWO UNITS IN
 
    SEPARATE REGIONS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS NOT
 APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 
    EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION BECAUSE IT MEETS NONE OF THE CRITERIA
 ESTABLISHED IN (S)ECTION 10(B) OF
 
    THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  MY REASONING IS BASED ON CONCLUSIONS REACHED
 FROM THE ABOVE-STATED FACTS
 
    WHICH SHOW THAT THE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT
 DO NOT SHARE OVERALL
 
    SUPERVISION AT THE FIELD LEVEL AND DO NOT SHARE UNIFORM PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND LABOR RELATIONS
 
    PRACTICES.  WHILE THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR JOB CLASSIFICATION,
 THE SAME COULD BE SAID FOR
 
    THE OTHER APPROXIMATELY 40,000 EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THE NATION IN THE
 FIELD WHO ARE EMPLOYED
 
    BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY DISTRICT OFFICES.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT
 THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 
    PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT DO NOT SHARE A CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE
 COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.
 
    INASMUCH AS THE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT ARE
 NOT SERVICED BY THE
 
    SAME PERSONNEL OFFICE AND ARE NOT UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE SAME
 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER IN
 
    EACH