---

 2 FLRA No. 63
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 BUREAU OF THE MINT
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Petitioner
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 22-09512(UC)
 
                    DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
 
    UPON AN AMENDED PETITION DULY FILED UNDER SECTION 6 OF EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE HEARING OFFICER
 COLLEN DUFFY RAAP.  THE HEARING OFFICER'S RULINGS MADE AT THE HEARING
 ARE FREE FROM PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 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 RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (44 F.R. 44741, JULY 30, 1979).  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).
 
    UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING
 BRIEFS FILED BY THE PARTIES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:
 
    THE PETITIONER, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO (AFGE), FILED THE INSTANT PETITION SEEKING TO CONSOLIDATE THE
 THREE UNITS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF THE MINT
 (THE MINT), FOR WHICH IT IS THE CURRENT EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  THE
 AFGE IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR ONE UNIT CONSISTING OF ALL THE
 NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE MINT, FOR ANOTHER UNIT CONSISTING OF
 ALL THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE MINT, FOR ANOTHER UNIT CONSISTING
 OF ALL THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE MINT, AND FOR A THIRD UNIT
 CONSISTING OF ALL THE GUARD EMPLOYEES OF THE MINT, EXCLUDING THE GUARDS
 AT THE PHILADELPHIA MINT.
 
    THE MINT DOES NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION OF THE
 PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL UNITS REPRESENTED BY THE AFGE.
 HOWEVER, THE MINT OPPOSES THE INCLUSION OF THE GUARDS IN THE PROPOSED
 NATIONWIDE UNIT.  THE MINT CONTENDS THAT, AS THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
 OF ITS GUARD EMPLOYEES INVOLVES SECURITY, THEY ARE A FUNCTIONALLY
 DISTINCT GROUP WHOSE INCLUSION IN THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT WOULD
 BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA FOR INCLUSIVE UNITS SET FORTH IN
 SECTION 10(B) OF THE ORDER.  THE AFGE, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUES THAT
 THE GUARD EMPLOYEES OF THE MINT SHARE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WITH THE
 OTHER MINT EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS MANIFESTED BY THE COMMON MISSION, COMMON
 OVERALL SUPERVISION, AND SIMILAR PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES
 ESTABLISHED BY THE MINT'S HEADQUARTERS, WHICH THEY SHARE.  ALSO, THE
 AFGE NOTES THAT THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT WOULD PROMOTE A MORE
 COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING STRUCTURE, WHILE REDUCING UNIT FRAGMENTATION.
 /1/
 
    THE MINT'S MISSION INCLUDES THE PRODUCTION OF COINS, BOTH DOMESTIC
 AND FOREIGN;  THE CUSTODY, PROCESSING, AND MOVEMENT OF BULLION;  AND THE
 MANUFACTURE OF VARIOUS NUMISMATIC ITEMS.  HEADED BY A DIRECTOR, WHO IS
 SUPPORTED BY A HEADQUARTERS STAFF LOCATED IN WASHINGTON, D.C., THE MINT
 OPERATES SEVEN FIELD FACILITIES.  THESE FACILITIES INCLUDE THE UNITED
 STATES MINTS IN PHILADELPHIA AND DENVER, THE UNITED STATES ASSAY OFFICES
 IN SAN FRANCISCO AND NEW YORK, THE UNITED STATES BULLION DEPOSITORIES IN
 FORT KNOX AND WEST POINT, AND THE OLD MINT IN SAN FRANCISCO.  THE
 FACILITIES ARE INVOLVED PRIMARILY WITH EITHER PRODUCTION OR STORAGE.
 THEY ARE ALL CHARACTERIZED BY A MIX OF WAGE GRADE AND GENERAL SCHEDULE
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    THERE ARE GUARDS EMPLOYED AT EACH OF THE MINT'S FIELD FACILITIES.
 THEY ARE THE EMPLOYEES PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SECURITY OF
 PROPERTY AND THE VALUABLES STORED AT THE FACILITIES, A TASK WHOSE
 MAGNITUDE IS OBVIOUSLY GREATER THAN FOR GUARD EMPLOYEES AT MANY OTHER
 FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.  THE GUARDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCREENING OR
 CONTROLLING ACCESS TO THE BUILDINGS OPERATED BY THE MINT, AND THROUGH A
 VARIETY OF TECHNIQUES, FOR SCREENING THE MINT'S OWN EMPLOYEES IN THE
 COURSE OF THEIR DAILY ACTIVITY.  THE GUARDS WEAR UNIFORMS IN PERFORMING
 THEIR FUNCTION, INCLUDING AN IDENTIFYING BADGE.  THEY CARRY FIREARMS AND
 MUST DEMONSTRATE CONTINUED PROFICIENCY WITH THEM.  THEY PROVIDE 24-HOUR
 COVERAGE FOR THE MINT'S FACILITIES ON A YEAR-ROUND BASIS.  IN MOST OF
 THE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH SEPARATE EATING AND LOCKER
 ROOM FACILITIES SO AS TO DISCOURAGE FRATERNIZATION WITH NONGUARD
 EMPLOYEES.  THE MINT HAS RECENTLY BEGUN A PROGRAM OF CONVERTING ITS
 GUARD EMPLOYEES FROM GUARD TO POLICE OFFICER CLASSIFICATIONS, AND IN SO
 DOING THEY HAVE PROVIDED SOME GUARD EMPLOYEES WITH EXTENSIVE TRAINING
 AVAILABLE THROUGH THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER.  HOWEVER,
 THE RECORD REVEALS THAT GUARD EMPLOYEES OFTEN SEEK PROMOTIONAL
 OPPORTUNITIES TO NONGUARD POSITIONS WITH THE MINT, AS EVIDENCED BY THE
 FACT THAT NINE GUARD EMPLOYEES HAVE TRANSFERRED TO NONGUARD POSITIONS AT
 THE SAN FRANCISCO ASSAY OFFICE IN THE RECENT PAST, AND SOME 12 TO 15
 EMPLOYEES HAVE MADE SIMILAR MOVES AT THE PHILADELPHIA MINT.
 
    UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 10988, LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WERE ALLOWED TO BE
 RECOGNIZED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF UNITS WHICH INCLUDED BOTH
 GUARD AND NONGUARD EMPLOYEES.  DURING THAT PERIOD, AFGE LOCALS GAINED
 RECOGNITION FOR UNITS OF ALL NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING
 GUARDS, AT THE DENVER MINT AND THE NEW YORK, N.Y. AND SAN FRANCISCO
 ASSAY OFFICES, AND FOR A UNIT OF ALL NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING
 GUARDS, AT THE PHILADELPHIA MINT.  IN ALL OF THESE LOCATIONS, THERE WERE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS WHICH COVERED GUARD AND NONGUARD EMPLOYEES.
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1970, REQUIRED SEPARATE
 UNITS FOR GUARDS, AND IT PERMITTED NEW UNITS OF GUARDS TO BE REPRESENTED
 ONLY BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH REPRESENTED GUARDS EXCLUSIVELY.
 HOWEVER, MIXED UNITS, SUCH AS THE FOUR NOTED ABOVE, WERE ALLOWED TO
 CONTINUE AS THEY HAD EXISTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1970.  IN 1971, AS THE
 RESULT OF A TIMELY PETITION AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTION, FRATERNAL ORDER OF
 POLICE LODGE NO. 81(FOP) WAS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF THE GUARD EMPLOYEES OF THE PHILADELPHIA MINT, REPLACING AFGE.  THE
 AFGE PETITIONED FOR A NATIONWIDE UNIT OF MINT EMPLOYEES IN 1972.  THEY
 WERE REQUIRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491 TO EXCLUDE GUARD EMPLOYEES FROM
 THEIR PETITION.  ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1973, AFGE WAS CERTIFIED AS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR SEPARATE NATIONWIDE UNITS OF THE MINT'S
 PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, THEREBY LEAVING MOST GUARD
 EMPLOYEES UNREPRESENTED.
 
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11838, DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1975, AMENDED EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, IN PART, BY ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT GUARDS BE
 REPRESENTED IN SEPARATE UNITS AND ONLY BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH
 REPRESENTED GUARDS EXCLUSIVELY.  IN ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH
 ACCOMPANIED THE ISSUANCE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11838, THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS COUNCIL INDICATED THAT THE EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED UNDER EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491 HAD "DEMONSTRATED NO NEED FOR THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OF
 GUARDS." IN THIS REGARD, THEY NOTED THAT "MIXED UNITS OF GUARDS AND
 OTHER EMPLOYEES, WHICH WERE RECOGNIZED PRIOR TO 1970, HAVE CONTINUED TO
 PROVIDE EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION FOR ALL MEMBERS." /2/ ON JULY 7, 1976,
 AFGE PETITIONED FOR, AND WAS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF A NATIONWIDE UNIT OF THE MINT'S NONSUPERVISORY SPECIAL POLICE AND
 GUARDS, EXCLUSIVE OF THE GUARD EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE FOP AT THE
 PHILADELPHIA MINT.  THE AFGE MINT COUNCIL PRESENTLY HAS A NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT WITH THE MINT COVERING THE MINT'S PROFESSIONAL AND
 NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, OTHER THAN GUARDS, REPRESENTED BY AFGE, WHICH
 WAS EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 15, 1977.  IN ADDITION, THE AFGE MINT COUNCIL HAS
 A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE MINT COVERING THE MINT'S GUARD
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE AFGE, WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE APRIL 28, 1977,
 AND PROVIDES FOR UNION REPRESENTATION OF GUARD EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTARY
 DUES ALLOTMENT.
 
    BASED ON THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED, THE
 AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE PETITIONED FOR CONSOLIDATED UNIT, INCLUDING
 GUARDS, IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER
 THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE ORDER.  /3/ AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE
 UNIT SOUGHT ENCOMPASSES ALL THE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MINT REPRESENTED BY
 THE AFGE.  THESE EMPLOYEES SHARE A COMMON MISSION, COMMON JOB
 CLASSIFICATIONS AND COMMON WORKING CONDITIONS, AND WORK UNDER SIMILAR
 PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
 THE MINT.  MORE PARTICULARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE GUARD EMPLOYEES OF THE
 MINT, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THEY ARE COVERED BY THE SAME PERSONNEL
 POLICIES WHICH AFFECT ALL MINT EMPLOYEES, AND THAT GUARDS HAVE BEEN ABLE
 TO SEEK PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY MOVING TO NONGUARD POSITIONS WITHIN
 THE MINT.  THUS, THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PETITIONED FOR UNIT SHARE A
 COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.
 
    FURTHER, THE RECORD REVEALS THAT ALL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
 AUTHORITY FOR THE MINT LIES WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE MINT.  THE
 PERSONNEL OFFICE ESTABLISHES, THROUGH THE PERSONNEL MANUAL, CENTRALIZED
 POLICIES APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES CONCERNING PERSONNEL AND LABOR
 RELATIONS MATTERS.  THERE IS CURRENTLY A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN
 THE MINT AND THE AFGE MINT COUNCIL WHICH DEALS WITH WORKING CONDITIONS
 FOR THE PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE MINT
 NATIONWIDE, AND A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE MINT AND THE
 AFGE MINT COUNCIL PROVIDING FOR REPRESENTATION AND VOLUNTARY DUES
 CHECKOFF FOR ALL GUARD EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT FOR GUARD EMPLOYEES OF THE
 PHILADELPHIA MINT.  THE RECORD INDICATES THAT GUARDS WERE EFFECTIVELY
 REPRESENTED IN MIXED UNITS FOR VARYING PERIODS OF TIME PRIOR TO THE
 NECESSITY OF THEIR BEING EXCLUDED FROM THE AFGE'S NATIONWIDE UNITS, AND
 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY COULD NOT BE EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED IN A
 MIXED UNIT AGAIN, NOW THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR EXCLUSION NO LONGER
 EXISTS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE
 PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT WILL PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND
 EFFICIENCY OF THE ACTIVITY'S OPERATIONS.  FURTHER, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT
 EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS WILL BE ENHANCED
 BY THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT, WHICH COVERS ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY THE AFGE WITHIN THE MINT, AS IT WILL PROVIDE FOR
 BARGAINING IN A SINGLE UNIT RATHER THAN IN THE EXISTING THREE BARGAINING
 UNITS, THEREBY REDUCING FRAGMENTATION AND PROMOTING A MORE EFFECTIVE,
 COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING UNIT STRUCTURE.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE FOLLOWING UNIT /4/ IS
 APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:  /5/
 
    ALL PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF
 
    THE MINT, INCLUDING SPECIAL POLICE AND GUARDS, EXCLUDING SPECIAL
 POLICE AND GUARDS ASSIGNED TO
 
    THE PHILADELPHIA MINT, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
 FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK IN
 
    OTHER THAN A PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY, CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES, AND
 SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN
 
    THE ORDER.
 
    THE ACTIVITY REQUESTED THAT IN THE EVENT THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED
 UNIT WAS FOUND APPROPRIATE, AN ELECTION BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
 NOT THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED IN THE PROPOSED
 CONSOLIDATED UNIT BY THE AFGE.  AS NOTED ABOVE, THE UNIT FOUND
 APPROPRIATE INCLUDES PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.  HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY IS
 PROHIBITED BY SECTION 10(B)(4) OF THE ORDER FROM INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL
 EMPLOYEES IN A UNIT WITH NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES UNLESS A MAJORITY OF
 THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES VOTES FOR INCLUSION IN SUCH A UNIT.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE DESIRES OF THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES MUST BE
 ASCERTAINED, AND THE AUTHORITY WILL DIRECT THAT SEPARATE ELECTIONS BE
 CONDUCTED IN THE FOLLOWING VOTING GROUPS:
 
    VOTING GROUP (A):  ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF
 
    THE MINT, EXCLUDING ALL NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, SPECIAL POLICE AND
 GUARDS, MANAGEMENT
 
    OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN
 A PURELY CLERICAL
 
    CAPACITY, CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES, AND SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE
 ORDER.
 
    VOTING GROUP (B):  ALL NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, BUREAU
 
    OF THE MINT, INCLUDING SPECIAL POLICE AND GUARDS, EXCLUDING ALL
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES,
 
    SPECIAL POLICE AND GUARDS ASSIGNED TO THE PHILADELPHIA MINT,
 MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES
 
    ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN A PURELY CLERICAL
 CAPACITY, CONFIDENTIAL
 
    EMPLOYEES, AND SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    EMPLOYEES IN THE NONPROFESSIONAL VOTING GROUP (B) WILL BE POLLED
 WHETHER THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION IN THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
 
    EMPLOYEES IN THE PROFESSIONAL VOTING GROUP (A) WILL BE ASKED TWO
 QUESTIONS ON THEIR BALLOTS:  (1) WHETHER THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED
 FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION IN THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED
 UNIT BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AND (2) WHETHER
 THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED IN A SEPARATE CONSOLIDATED PROFESSIONAL
 UNIT IF THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT IS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF ALL
 THE EMPLOYEES VOTING.
 
    THE VALID VOTES CAST BY ALL THE ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WILL BE TALLIED TO
 DETERMINE IF A MAJORITY OF THE VALID VOTES HAS BEEN CAST IN FAVOR OF THE
 PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT.  IF A MAJORITY OF THE VALID VOTES HAS NOT
 BEEN CAST IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT, THE EMPLOYEES WILL
 BE TAKEN TO HAVE INDICATED THEIR DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO BE REPRESENTED IN
 THEIR CURRENT UNITS OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION.  IF A MAJORITY OF THE
 VALID VOTES IS CASE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT, THE
 BALLOTS OF THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES IN VOTING GROUP(A) WILL THEN BE
 TALLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WISH TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SAME
 CONSOLIDATED UNIT WITH THE NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.  UNLESS A MAJORITY
 OF THE VALID VOTES OF VOTING GROUP (A) IS CAST FOR INCLUSION IN THE SAME
 CONSOLIDATED UNIT AS THE NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, THE PROFESSIONAL
 EMPLOYEES WILL BE TAKEN TO HAVE INDICATED THEIR DESIRE TO CONSTITUTE A
 SEPARATE CONSOLIDATED PROFESSIONAL UNIT AND AN APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATION
 WILL BE ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
 
    THE UNIT DETERMINATION IN THE SUBJECT CASE THUS IS BASED IN PART UPON
 THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION AMONG THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.  HOWEVER,
 THE AUTHORITY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS IN REGARD TO THE APPROPRIATE
 UNIT:
 
    1.  IF A MAJORITY OF THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES DOES NOT VOTE FOR
 INCLUSION IN THE SAME UNIT AS THE NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS THE FOLLOWING UNITS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10 OF THE ORDER:
 
    ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, BUREAU
 OF THE MINT, EXCLUDING
 
    ALL NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, SPECIAL POLICE AND GUARDS, MANAGEMENT
 OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES
 
    ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN A PURELY CLERICAL
 CAPACITY, CONFIDENTIAL
 
    EMPLOYEES, AND SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    ALL NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 BUREAU OF THE MINT,
 
    INCLUDING SPECIAL POLICE AND GUARDS, EXCLUDING ALL PROFESSIONAL
 EMPLOYEES, SPECIAL POLICE AND
 
    GUARDS ASSIGNED TO THE PHILADELPHIA MINT, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS,
 EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL
 
    PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN A PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY, CONFIDENTIAL
 EMPLOYEES, AND
 
    SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    2.  IF A MAJORITY OF THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES VOTES FOR INCLUSION
 IN THE SAME CONSOLIDATED UNIT AS THE NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS THE FOLLOWING UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10 OF THE ORDER:
 
    ALL PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF
 
    THE MINT, INCLUDING SPECIAL POLICE AND GUARDS, EXCLUDING SPECIAL
 POLICE AND GUARDS ASSIGNED TO
 
    THE PHILADELPHIA MINT, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
 FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK IN
 
    OTHER THAN A PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY, CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES, AND
 SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN
 
    THE ORDER.
 
                           DIRECTION OF ELECTION
 
    AN ELECTION BY SECRET BALLOT SHALL BE CONDUCTED AMONG THE EMPLOYEES
 IN THE VOTING GROUPS DESCRIBED ABOVE, AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT
 LATER THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW.  THE APPROPRIATE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR SHALL SUPERVISE THE ELECTION, SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY'S
 TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS.  ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ARE THOSE IN THE
 VOTING GROUPS WHO WERE EMPLOYED DURING THE PAYROLL PERIOD IMMEDIATELY
 PRECEDING THE DATE BELOW, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT WORK DURING
 THAT PERIOD BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT ILL, OR ON VACATION OR ON FURLOUGH,
 INCLUDING THOSE IN THE MILITARY SERVICE WHO APPEAR IN PERSON AT THE
 POLLS.  INELIGIBLE TO VOTE ARE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE QUIT OR WERE
 DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE SINCE THE DESIGNATED PAYROLL PERIOD AND WHO HAVE
 NOT BEEN REHIRED OR REINSTATED BEFORE THE ELECTION DATE.  THOSE ELIGIBLE
 SHALL VOTE WHETHER OR NOT THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSE
 OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION IN THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED UNIT BY THE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 17, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    /1/ AS THE PARTIES, IN EFFECT, BILATERALLY AGREED TO THE PROPOSED
 CONSOLIDATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL UNITS, THE
 TESTIMONY ADDUCED AT THE HEARING IN THIS MATTER WAS PRIMARILY LIMITED TO
 THE APPROPRIATENESS OF INCLUDING THE GUARDS IN THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED
 UNIT.
 
    /2/ LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE(1975), AT 30.
 
    /3/ VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., 1 FLRA 55, AND THE
 CASES CITED THEREIN AT FOOTNOTE 9.  ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN FINDINGS,
 AS RELIED ON BY THE ACTIVITY HEREIN, THAT GUARD EMPLOYEES MIGHT BE
 REPRESENTED IN SEPARATE GUARD UNITS IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY FORM A
 FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT GROUP, THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE A FINDING, UNDER
 OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT GUARDS SHOULD APPROPRIATELY BE INCLUDED IN A
 MIXED UNIT, CONSOLIDATED OR OTHERWISE, WHICH IS SOUGHT BY A PARTICULAR
 PETITIONER, NOTING ESPECIALLY THE CURRENT POLICY REGARDING GUARD
 REPRESENTATION CITED ABOVE.  SEE NAVAL AIR TEST CENTER/NAVAL AIR
 STATION, PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND, A/SLMR NO. 1019(APRIL 13, 1978);
 GENERAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATION, REGION 4, 7 A/SLMR 856, A/SLMR NO.
 911(1977);  AND DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, LONG
 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 6 A/SLMR 150, A/SLMR NO. 629(1976).  IN DEPARTMENT OF
 THE NAVY, A/SLMR NO. 629, WHILE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY REJECTED
 INTERVENOR INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
 EMPLOYEES' (IFPTE) ARGUMENT THAT THE GUARDS HAD ACCRETED TO THEIR UNIT
 OF ALL THE ACTIVITY'S NONPROFESSIONAL GS EMPLOYEES WITH THE AMENDMENT OF
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN 1975, THE DIRECTION OF ELECTION THEREIN GAVE THE
 GUARD EMPLOYEES THE OPTION OF CHOOSING THE PETITIONER INTERNATIONAL
 BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AS THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR AN
 EXCLUSIVELY GUARD UNIT OR OF CHOOSING THE IFPTE AND BECOMING PART OF
 THEIR EXISTING UNIT.
 
    /4/ INSOFAR AS THE ACTUAL STATE OF THE EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED UNITS
 AT THE TIME OF THE CONSOLIDATION ELECTION MAY DIFFER, IF AT ALL, FROM
 THE UNIT FOUND APPROPRIATE HEREIN, THE UNIT DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE SO
 MODIFIED.
 
    /5/ 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 AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER
 EITHER THE MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW
 STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF
 THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE ORDER.
 
 
 

---