[ v01 p252 ]
01:0252(33)RO
The decision of the Authority follows:
1 FLRA NO. 33
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
PASSPORT OFFICE,
CHICAGO PASSPORT AGENCY
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3671, AFL-CIO
Petitioner
Assistant Secretary
Case No. 50-13100(RO)
A/SLMR Nos. 697, 929, 1108
FLRC No. 76A-147
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
ON AUGUST 30, 1978, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ISSUED A DECISION IN A/SLMR 1108, IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING. IN HIS DECISION, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
REAFFIRMED, IN ESSENCE, HIS PREVIOUS FINDING IN A/SLMR 697 THAT THE
PETITIONED-FOR UNIT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE
RECOGNITION UNDER THE ORDER. /1/
THEREAFTER, ON DECEMBER 28, 1978, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL
(COUNCIL) ISSUED ITS DECISION ON APPEAL OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S
DECISION AS SUPPLEMENTED IN FLRC 76A-147 SETTING ASIDE THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY'S DECISION IN A/SLMR 1108, AND REMANDING THE CASE FOR ACTION
CONSISTENT WITH ITS DECISION.
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IN A MATTER SUCH AS HERE
INVOLVED, WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF
FUNCTIONS IS IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION
RULES AND REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 7). THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
BASED ON THE COUNCIL'S HOLDING IN THE INSTANT CASE AND THE RATIONALE
CONTAINED THEREIN, THE AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF ITS
TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE,
WILL ORDER THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER INVOLVED HEREIN BE REVOKED, AND THAT THE PETITION HEREIN
BE DISMISSED. /2/
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE ISSUED
IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE ON. 50-13100(RO) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
REVOKED, AND THAT THE PETITION IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO.
50-13100(RO) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 1979
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DECISION ON APPEAL FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION AS
SUPPLEMENTED
BACKGROUND OF CASE
THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON THE AGENCY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION IN A/SLMR 697, AS SUPPLEMENTED IN
A/SLMR 929 AND 1108 PURSUANT TO THE COUNCIL'S REQUEST FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION OF HIS INITIAL DECISION. IN HIS
DECISION, AS SUPPLEMENTED, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOUND APPROPRIATE A
UNIT OF ALL (APPROXIMATELY 45) NONPROFESSIONAL PERMANENT, TEMPORARY AND
SEASONAL EMPLOYEES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PASSPORT OFFICE, CHICAGO
PASSPORT AGENCY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (THE ACTIVITY).
MORE PARTICULARLY, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IN HIS INITIAL DECISION,
FOUND THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT BY THE UNION (AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3671) IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER THE THREE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN
SECTION 10(B) OF THE ORDER, AND DIRECTED AN ELECTION IN SUCH UNIT. THE
ELECTION RESULTED IN THE UNION'S CERTIFICATION AS EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT. THE AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE ACTIVITY,
PETITIONED THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION
AND REQUESTED A STAY. THE COUNCIL, BEFORE DETERMINING WHETHER TO ACCEPT
OR DENY THE AGENCY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW, DECIDED TO REQUEST
CLARIFICATION BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE DECISION IN A/SLMR 697,
IN LIGHT OF THE COUNCIL'S CONSOLIDATED DCASR DECISION WHICH HAD BEEN
ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO A/SLMR 697. /3/
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FINDING THAT "THE RECORD DID NOT PROVIDE AN
ADEQUATE BASIS UPON WHICH TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATIONS REGARDING
EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY
THE COUNCIL," REMANDED THE CASE TO THE APPROPRIATE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING THE RECORD TO SECURE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO THESE CRITERIA (A/SLMR NO. 929). IN HIS
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION (A/SLMR NO. 1108), THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, REAFFIRMED THE PREVIOUS FINDING
THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE
RECOGNITION UNDER THE ORDER.
THE PERTINENT FACTUAL BACKGROUND HEREIN, BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IS AS FOLLOWS: THE OVERALL MISSION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE PASSPORT OFFICE (PASSPORT OFFICE) IS TO ADMINISTER
LAWS RELATING TO NATIONALITY AND TO CONDUCT ALL PASSPORT ACTIVITIES.
THE SPECIFIC MISSION OF ITS FIELD AGENCIES IS TO PROVIDE PASSPORT
SERVICES TO PERSONS WITHIN THEIR ASSIGNED GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS. THE
PASSPORT OFFICE IS PART OF THE BUREAU OF SECURITY AND COUNSELOR AFFAIRS
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. IT HAS A NATIONAL OFFICE IN WASHINGTON,
D.C. AND TEN FIELD AGENCIES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, ONE
OF WHICH IS THE ACTIVITY INVOLVED HEREIN. EACH FIELD AGENCY IS UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF AN AGENT-IN-CHARGE (AIC) WHO REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE
DIRECTOR OF THE PASSPORT OFFICE.
THE PASSPORT OFFICE FIELD AGENCIES AND THE NATIONAL OFFICE ARE LINKED
TOGETHER BY A TELETYPE NETWORK AND CONTACT EACH OTHER AS NEEDED. WHILE
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF REGULAR TEMPORARY INTERCHANGE OF PERSONNEL AMONG
THE VARIOUS FIELD AGENCIES, DURING THE PAST NINE YEARS LATERAL TRANSFERS
INTO THE ACTIVITY INVOLVED HEREIN OCCURRED FREQUENTLY.
THE CLAIMED UNIT WITHIN THE ACTIVITY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 45
EMPLOYEES. /4/ THE SKILLS REQUIRED AND THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY THESE
EMPLOYEES ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE AT THE OTHER FIELD AGENCIES.
COMMON PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES APPLY TO ALL THE FIELD
AGENCIES. THESE PERSONNEL POLICIES ARE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF
THE AGENCY BY THE BUREAU OF PERSONNEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
LOCATED AT AGENCY HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THE AGENCY'S BUREAU
OF PERSONNEL ALSO HAS FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OVER LABOR
RELATIONS MATTERS AND PERSONNEL ACTIONS INVOLVING PASSPORT OFFICE
EMPLOYEES. THUS, FINAL APPROVAL FOR PERSONNEL ACTIONS IS VESTED SOLELY
WITHIN THE BUREAU OF PERSONNEL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WHILE AT THE
ACTIVITY LEVEL THE AIC IMPLEMENTS PERSONNEL POLICIES AND MAKES
RECOMMENDATIONS ON PERSONNEL ACTIONS WHICH ARE FORWARDED TO THE
AGENCY'S
BUREAU OF PERSONNEL FOR APPROVAL. ON PERSONNEL MATTERS SUCH AS
PROMOTIONS, OVERTIME, TRAVEL, AWARDS, HIRING AT THE GS-7 LEVEL AND
BELOW, FORMAL DISCIPLINE, LAYOFFS, TRAINING, AND POSITION DESCRIPTIONS,
THE ACTIVITY'S AIC FORWARDS HIS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BUREAU OF
PERSONNEL FOR APPROVAL AND THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GENERALLY ADOPTED.
WITH REGARD TO LABOR RELATIONS, SUCH POLICY IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE
ENTIRE PASSPORT OFFICE BY THE AGENCY'S DEPUTY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR MANAGEMENT. LABOR RELATIONS PERSONNEL, LOCATED IN THE BUREAU OF
PERSONNEL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ARE AUTHORIZED TO HANDLE ALL LABOR
RELATIONS MATTERS FOR THE AGENCY'S PASSPORT OFFICE. NO LABOR RELATIONS
PERSONNEL ARE ASSIGNED TO, OR LOCATED AT, THE ACTIVITY.
FINALLY, WHILE LOCAL PERSONNEL PROBLEMS (SUCH AS WORK BREAKS, LUNCH
PERIODS, STARTING AND QUITTING TIMES AND PROCEDURES FOR ROTATING THE
DUTY OFFICER ASSIGNMENT) CAN BE RESOLVED AT THE ACTIVITY LEVEL, A
NATIONWIDE UNIT, AS INDICATED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, "WOULD RESULT
IN A UNIFORM POLICY NATIONALLY, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INCONSISTENCIES
AMONG THE (A)CTIVITY LEVEL OFFICES WOULD BE LESS IN A UNIT STRUCTURE
WHICH FOLLOWED THE CENTRALIZED OPERATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
OF THE (A)GENCY." /5/
AS ALREADY STATED, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IN HIS DECISION AS
SUPPLEMENTED, FOUND THAT THE UNIT LIMITED TO THE 45 EMPLOYEES OF THE
CHICAGO FIELD AGENCY MET THE THREE CRITERIA OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE
ORDER AND THEREFORE WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE
RECOGNITION UNDER THE ORDER.
UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE AGENCY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW AND THE
SUPPLEMENT THERETO, THE COUNCIL DETERMINED THAT A MAJOR POLICY ISSUE IS
PRESENTED BY THE DECISION OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY AS SUPPLEMENTED,
NAMELY: WHETHER THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION IN THIS CASE IS
CONSISTENT WITH AND PROMOTES THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE ORDER,
ESPECIALLY THOSE REFLECTED IN SECTION 10(B). THE COUNCIL ALSO GRANTED
THE AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR A STAY. NEITHER OF THE PARTIES FILED A
SEPARATE BRIEF ON THE MERITS. INSTEAD, THE AGENCY RELIED UPON EARLIER
SUBMISSIONS TO THE COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL, AND THE UNION
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AN EARLIER SUBMISSION TO THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY AS ITS BRIEF BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL HAS CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED THESE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE CASE IN
REACHING ITS DECISION HEREIN.
OPINION
AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, UPON FURTHER
CONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION OF HIS INITIAL DECISION (A/SLMR 697) IN
LIGHT OF THE CONSOLIDATED DCASR DECISION PURSUANT TO THE COUNCIL'S
REQUEST, FOUND THAT A UNIT OF ALL (APPROXIMATELY 45) NONPROFESSIONAL
PERMANENT, TEMPORARY, AND SEASONAL EMPLOYEES AT THE ACTIVITY WAS
APPROPRIATE FOR EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION (A/SLMR 1108). THE MAJOR POLICY
ISSUE RAISED HEREIN IS WHETHER THE INSTANT DECISION AS SUPPLEMENTED IS
CONSISTENT WITH AND PROMOTES THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE ORDER,
ESPECIALLY THOSE REFLECTED IN SECTION 10(B).
IN ITS CONSOLIDATED DCASR DECISION, THE COUNCIL SET FORTH AND
EXPLICATED CERTAIN PRINCIPLES WHICH FLOW FROM SECTION 10(B) OF THE ORDER
AND, IN SO DOING, FURTHER EMPHASIZED THE DUAL OBJECTIVE OF PREVENTING
FURTHER FRAGMENTATION OF BARGAINING UNITS AS WELL AS REDUCING EXISTING
FRAGMENTATION, AS FOLLOWS (SUPRA N. 1, 4 FLRC 668 AT 677):
BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY MAY FIND THAT A PROPOSED UNIT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR PURPOSES OF
EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER THE ORDER, HE MUST MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE
DETERMINATION THAT THE
PROPOSED UNIT SATISFIED EQUALLY EACH OF THE THREE CRITERIA CONTAINED
IN SECTION 10(B). THAT
IS, HE MUST CONSIDER EQUALLY THE EVIDENCE GOING TO EACH OF THE THREE
CRITERIA AND, AS REQUIRED
BY SECTION 10(B), FIND APPROPRIATE ONLY UNITS WHICH NOT ONLY ENSURE A
CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE
COMMUNITY OF INTEREST BUT ALSO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND
EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY
OPERATIONS. IN MAKING THE AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION THAT A PROPOSED
BARGAINING UNIT SATISFIES
EACH OF THE THREE CRITERIA, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY MUST FIRST
DEVELOP AS COMPLETE A RECORD AS
POSSIBLE, SOLICITING EVIDENCE FROM THE PARTIES AS NECESSARY, AND THEN
GROUND HIS DECISION UPON
A CAREFUL, THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARY FACTORS OR EVIDENTIARY
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH PROVIDE
A SHARP DEGREE OF DEFINITION AND PRECISION TO EACH OF THE THREE
CRITERIA. FINALLY, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY MUST MAKE THE NECESSARY
AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATIONS THAT A
UNIT CLEARLY, CONVINCINGLY AND EQUALLY SATISFIES EACH OF THE 10(B)
CRITERIA IN RECOGNITION OF
AND IN A MANNER FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE ORDER,
INCLUDING THE DUAL OBJECTIVES
OF PREVENTING FURTHER FRAGMENTATION OF BARGAINING UNITS AS WELL AS
REDUCING EXISTING
FRAGMENTATION, THEREBY PROMOTING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING UNIT
STRUCTURE.
MOREOVER, IN ITS LETTER REQUESTING CLARIFICATION OF THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY'S INITIAL DECISION HEREIN, THE COUNCIL QUOTED AND DISCUSSED AT
LENGTH ITS CONSOLIDATED DCASR DECISION, THEREBY DIRECTING HIS ATTENTION
TO THE DETAILED PRINCIPLES SET FORTH THEREIN.
THE COUNCIL, REAFFIRMING THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THE
CONSOLIDATED DCASR DECISION FOR THE REASONS FULLY EXPLICATED BY THE
COUNCIL IN THAT DECISION, WHICH ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE HEREIN, FINDS,
UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE INSTANT CASE,
THAT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION AS SUPPLEMENTED IN THE INSTANT
CASE IS INCONSISTENT WITH AND FAILS TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES
OF THE ORDER, ESPECIALLY THOSE REFLECTED IN SECTION 10(B). THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT BY THE UNION IS NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER THE ORDER.
IN MORE DETAIL, THE COUNCIL IS OF THE OPINION THAT, WHILE THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY MADE AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED
UNIT SATISFIED EACH OF THE THREE APPROPRIATE UNIT CRITERIA CONTAINED IN
SECTION 10(B), HE DID NOT, "MOST IMPORTANTLY," MAKE HIS DETERMINATION
"IN RECOGNITION OF AND IN A MANNER FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF
THE ORDER," SPECIFICALLY THE OBJECTIVE "OF PREVENTING FURTHER
FRAGMENTATION OF BARGAINING UNITS . . ., THEREBY PROMOTING A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING UNIT STRUCTURE."
THUS, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY BASED HIS FINDING THAT THE 45 EMPLOYEES
IN THE UNIT SOUGHT "SHARE A CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE (A)GENCY" ON A
NUMBER OF SPECIFIC FACTORS, I.E., THAT "THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT SOUGHT
SHARE A COMMON MISSION, COMMON SUPERVISION, COMMON WORKING CONDITIONS,
UNIFORM PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES, ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS AND, GENERALLY, DO NOT EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT
INTERCHANGE OR TRANSFER AMONG OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE
(A)GENCY". HOWEVER, THE DECISION OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FAILS
ADEQUATELY TO RECOGNIZE AND PROPERLY TO WEIGH THE FACTORS WHICH CLEARLY
DEMONSTRATE THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST SHARED BY ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE
PASSPORT OFFICE. THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, AS TO THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS
EXPRESSLY RELIED UPON IN THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION, THE
SPECIFIC MISSION OF ALL THE FIELD AGENCIES WITHIN THE PASSPORT OFFICE IS
TO PROVIDE THE SAME PASSPORT SERVICES TO PERSONS WITHIN THEIR ASSIGNED
AREAS; THE SKILLS REQUIRED AND THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY THE 45 EMPLOYEES
IN THE UNIT SOUGHT AT THE ACTIVITY WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE AT
THE OTHER FIELD AGENCIES; PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE
CENTRALLY ESTABLISHED AND ADMINISTERED AT AGENCY HEADQUARTERS IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. AND APPLY UNIFORMLY TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE AGENCY, NOT
JUST TO THE 45 EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT SOUGHT; LABOR RELATIONS POLICY
ALSO IS CENTRALLY ESTABLISHED FOR THE ENTIRE PASSPORT OFFICE AT
HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WHERE ALL LABOR RELATIONS PERSONNEL
FOR THE AGENCY ARE LOCATED AND ARE AUTHORIZED TO HANDLE ALL LABOR
RELATIONS MATTERS FOR THE PASSPORT OFFICE; WHILE LOCAL PERSONNEL
PROBLEMS CAN BE RESOLVED AT THE ACTIVITY LEVEL, FINAL APPROVAL FOR
PERSONNEL ACTIONS IS VESTED SOLELY WITHIN THE AGENCY'S BUREAU OF
PERSONNEL IN WASHINGTON, D.C.; LATERAL TRANSFERS INTO THE ACTIVITY HAVE
OCCURRED REGULARLY OVER THE PAST NINE YEARS; AND A NATIONWIDE UNIT OF
ALL PASSPORT OFFICE EMPLOYEES, RATHER THAN THE UNIT SOUGHT, WOULD REDUCE
POTENTIAL INCONSISTENCIES AMONG THE ACTIVITY LEVEL OFFICES BY FOLLOWING
"THE CENTRALIZED OPERATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
(A)GENCY." UNDER ALL OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
FINDING OF A CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG THE 45
ACTIVITY EMPLOYEES, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ALL OTHER AGENCY
EMPLOYEES, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE ORDER,
SPECIFICALLY THE POLICY IN SECTION 10(B) OF "PREVENTING FURTHER
FRAGMENTATION OF BARGAINING UNITS . . ., THEREBY PROMOTING A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING UNIT STRUCTURE."
SIMILARLY, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED UNIT
"WOULD PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS WITHIN THE (A)GENCY" NOTWITHSTANDING
AN EXPRESSED RECOGNITION THAT A NUMBER OF FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THIS
REGARD (SUCH AS "THE LOCUS AND SCOPE OF PERSONNEL AUTHORITY, LIMITATIONS
ON THE NEGOTIATION OF MATTERS OF CRITICAL CONCERN TO EMPLOYEES AT THE
LEVEL OF THE PETITIONED FOR UNIT, THE AVAILABILITY OF NEGOTIATION
EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE OF THIS (A)GENCY IN OTHER BARGAINING UNITS, AND
THE LEVEL AT WHICH LABOR RELATIONS POLICY IS SET IN THE (A)GENCY") WOULD
DEROGATE FROM A CONCLUSION AS TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A UNIT AT THE
ACTIVITY LEVEL. THUS, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOUND, CONCERNING THE LOCUS AND SCOPE OF PERSONNEL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE
AGENCY, THAT THE BUREAU OF PERSONNEL LOCATED AT AGENCY HEADQUARTERS IN
WASHINGTON, D.C., ESTABLISHES AND ADMINISTERS COMMON PERSONNEL POLICIES
AND PRACTICES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE AGENCY AND ALSO RETAINS FINAL
APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PERSONNEL ACTIONS, THEREBY PLACING LIMITATIONS ON
THE NEGOTIATION OF MATTERS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL; THAT NEGOTIATING
EXPERTISE IS CONCENTRATED AT THE AGENCY HEADQUARTERS LEVEL (WHERE LABOR
RELATIONS POLICY IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE ENTIRE PASSPORT OFFICE) AND
COMPLETELY LACKING AT THE ACTIVITY LEVEL, WHERE THERE ARE NO LABOR
RELATIONS PERSONNEL AND THERE HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WITHIN THE PASSPORT OFFICE. IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTUAL
DETERMINATIONS, AND FOR THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY STATED, WE CONCLUDE THAT
THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED UNIT "WOULD PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS
WITHIN THE AGENCY" IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE
ORDER, ESPECIALLY THE POLICY REFLECTED IN SECTION 10(B) OF "PREVENTING
FURTHER FRAGMENTATION OF BARGAINING UNITS . . ., THEREBY PROMOTING A
MORE COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING UNIT STRUCTURE."
FINALLY, "(W)ITH RESPECT TO EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS . . . IF
THE PETITOINED FOR UNIT (WERE) FOUND APPROPRIATE," THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY SPECIFICALLY RELIED UPON SUCH FACTORS AS: (1) TRAVEL COSTS
FOR THE AGENCY'S NEGOTIATING TEAM "COULD BE" LESS THAN FOR A NATIONWIDE
UNIT; (2) NO UNUSUAL LABOR RELATIONS TRAINING COSTS WOULD BE INCURRED;
(3) NO ADDITIONAL LABOR RELATIONS PERSONNEL WOULD BE REQUIRED; AND (4)
NO ALLEGATION WAS MADE BY THE AGENCY THAT TWO EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED
BARGAINING UNITS LOCATED ELSEWHERE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE "HAVE
FAILED TO PROMOTE THE EFFICIENCY OF ITS OPERATIONS." HOWEVER, IN
REACHING HIS FINAL CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY
OPERATIONS, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FAILED TO ACCORD PROPER WEIGHT TO
HIS OWN ADDITIONAL FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS THAT (A) THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
UNIT SOUGHT ENJOY A COMMONALITY OF MISSION, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS WITH ALL EMPLOYEES OF
THE PASSPORT OFFICE, AND (B) "(A) NATIONWIDE UNIT . . . WHICH FOLLOWED
THE CENTRALIZED OPERATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
(A)GENCY" WOULD "RESULT IN A UNIFORM POLICY NATIONALLY AND (REDUCE) THE
POTENTIAL FOR INCONSISTENCIES AMONG THE ACTIVITY LEVEL OFFICES . . ." AS
THE COUNCIL STATED IN ITS CONSOLIDATED DCASR DECISION (SUPRA N. 1, 4
FLRC 668 AT 681):
AS TO "EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS" AMONG THOSE FACTORS WHICH
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
WOULD BE THE BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM A UNIT STRUCTURE WHICH BEARS
SOME RATIONAL
RELATIONSHIP TO THE OPERATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
AGENCY . . . (T)HE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BARGAINING UNIT AND THE OPERATIONAL
AND ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE OF THE AGENCY SHOULD BE GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT IN
ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE UNIT
WILL PROMOTE EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS.
MOREOVER, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S RELIANCE UPON THE ABSENCE OF AN
ALLEGATION BY THE AGENCY THAT EXISTING BARGAINING UNITS ELSEWHERE IN THE
AGENCY "HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE THE EFFICIENCY OF ITS OPERATIONS" IS ALSO
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THE COUNCIL'S
CONSOLIDATED DCASR DECISION. THUS, AS THE COUNCIL STATED THEREIN (4
FLRC 668 AT 690):
(T)HE ASSISTANT SECRETARY MAY NOT RELY UPON "THE ABSENCE OF ANY
SPECIFIC COUNTERVAILING
EVIDENCE . . . AS TO A LACK OF EFFECTIVE DEALING AND EFFICIENCY OF
AGENCY OPERATIONS" IN OTHER
EXISTING BARGAINING UNITS TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING REGARDING
THESE CRITERIA IN A
PROPOSED UNIT.
FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER FACTORS RELIED UPON BY THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN CONNECTION WITH "EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY
OPERATIONS," ALL RELATING ESSENTIALLY TO THE IMPACT OF THE CLAIMED UNIT
ON AGENCY OPERATIONS IN TERMS OF COSTS, AS COMPARED TO THE IMPACT OF A
MORE COMPREHENSIVE UNIT, THE COUNCIL ALSO STATED IN ITS CONSOLIDATED
DCASR DECISION (4 FLRC 668 AT 686) THAT "MORE THAN COST FACTORS ARE
INVOLVED IN A DETERMINATION OF THE PROMOTION OF EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY
OPERATIONS . . ." THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED (SUPRA AT
6), THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHOULD HAVE GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT TO THE
ORGANIZATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE AGENCY IN THIS REGARD,
BUT FAILED TO DO SO. ACCORDINGLY, IN LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, AND
FOR THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY STATED, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED UNIT WOULD PROMOTE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AGENCY'S OPERATIONS IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE ORDER, SPECIFICALLY
THE POLICY REFLECTED IN SECTION 10(B) OF "PREVENTING FURTHER
FRAGMENTATION OF BARGAINING UNITS . . ., THEREBY PROMOTING A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING UNIT STRUCTURE."
IN CONCLUSION, UNDER ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE, IT IS THE
COUNCIL'S OPINION THAT THE INSTANT DECISION OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
AS SUPPLEMENTED IS INCONSISTENT WITH AND FAILS TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSES
AND POLICIES OF THE ORDER, PARTICULARLY THOSE REFLECTED IN SECTION
10(B), AND FURTHER, THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PURPOSES
OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER THE ORDER. /6/
CONCLUSION
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE, AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 2411.18(B)
OF THE COUNCIL'S RULES OF PROCEDURE, WE SET ASIDE THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY'S DECISION AS SUPPLEMENTED AND REMAND THE CASE FOR ACTION
CONSISTENT WITH OUR DECISION HEREIN.
BY THE COUNCIL.
HENRY B. FRAZIER III
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ISSUED: DECEMBER 28, 1978
/1/ WE HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY ADVISED THAT, PURSUANT TO THE
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION IN A/SLMR 697, A CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE WAS ISSUED TO LOCAL 3671, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
/2/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE INSTANT CASE WAS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
THE DECISION DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE MEANING OR
APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH
WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE
STATUTE RATHER THAN THE ORDER.
/3/ DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
REGION (DCASR), SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, DEFENSE CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DISTRICT (DCASD), SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, A/SLMR
461, FLRC 75A-14; DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, DEFENSE CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATION SERVICES REGION, SAN FRANCISCO, A/SLMR 559, FLRC 75A-128;
AND DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
REGION (DCASR), SAN FRANCISCO, DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
DISTRICT (DCASD), SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, A/SLMR 564, FLRC 76A-4 (4 FLRC
668 (DEC. 30, 1976), REPORT NO. 119).
/4/ ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, AS OF JANUARY 1978, THE TOTAL STRENGTH
OF THE FIELD AGENCIES AND THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS WAS 868 ON-BOARD
PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES.
/5/ THE RECORD IS UNCLEAR AS TO THE IMPACT OF THE CLAIMED UNIT ON
AGENCY OPERATIONS IN TERMS OF COST, PRODUCTIVITY AND USE OF RESOURCES,
AS COMPARED TO THE IMPACT OF A MORE COMPREHENSIVE UNIT.
/6/ SEE ALSO DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY, DEFENSE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES REGION (DCASR), CLEVELAND, OHIO, DEFENSE CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATION SERVICES OFFICES (DCASO'S), AKRON, OHIO, A/SLMR 687, 5
FLRC 631 (FLRC NO. 76A-97 (JULY 20, 1977), REPORT NO. 131).