---

 4 FLRA No. 35
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER,
 TUCSON, ARIZONA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 495, AFL-CIO
 Petitioner
 
 and
 
 NURSES' COMMISSION ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
 ARIZONA NURSES ASSOCIATION
 Intervenor
 
                                            Case No. 72-7853(RO)
 
                    DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
 
    UPON A PETITION DULY FILED UNDER SECTION 6 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491,
 AS AMENDED, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER OF THE
 AUTHORITY.  THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE HEARING OFFICER'S RULINGS
 MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT THEY ARE FREE FROM PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, IN
 THE MATTER OF 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 RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2400.2).  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 THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE,
 INCLUDING BRIEFS SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY FINDS:
 
    THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 495
 FILED THE PETITION HEREIN, SEEKING TO REPRESENT A PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED
 UNIT OF THE PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED NURSES.  THE NURSES' COMMISSION ON
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, ARIZONA NURSES ASSOCIATION, THE CURRENT EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT, INTERVENED.  AT THE HEARING, THE PARTIES
 DISPUTED THE ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN NURSES WHO WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE
 UNIT.  THE DISPUTED CLASSIFICATIONS WERE:  NURSING HOME CARE UNIT
 SUPERVISOR, NURSING CASE SUPERVISORS, OPERATING ROOM HEAD NURSE, AND
 WARD HEAD NURSE.  THE REASON FOR THE DISPUTE IS THE CHANGED DEFINITION
 OF SUPERVISOR IN SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THE ISSUE CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE DISPUTED EMPLOYEES WAS
 SUBSEQUENTLY RESOLVED IN A RELATED CASE, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
 CENTER, TUCSON, ARIZONA, CASE NO. 8-CU-14, 4 FLRA NO. 21.  IN THAT CASE,
 THE UNIT WAS CLARIFIED SO AS TO INCLUDE WARD HEAD NURSES, AND EXCLUDE
 THE NURSING HOME CARE UNIT SUPERVISOR, NURSING CARE SUPERVISORS AND HEAD
 NURSES-OPERATING AND RECOVERY ROOM.  AS CLARIFIED, THE UNIT IS NOW
 DESCRIBED AS:
 
    ALL PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED NURSES, INCLUDING WARD HEAD NURSES,
 EMPLOYED AT THE VETERANS
 
    ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, TUCSON, ARIZONA, EXCLUDING ALL OTHER
 PROFESSIONAL
 
    EMPLOYEES;  NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES;  MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS;
 SUPERVISORS;  EMPLOYEES
 
    CLASSIFIED AS NURSE ANESTHETIST, NURSING HOME CARE UNIT SUPERVISOR;
 NURSING CARE
 
    SUPERVISOR;  HEAD NURSE-OPERATING AND RECOVERY ROOM;  AND EMPLOYEES
 DESCRIBED IN 5
 
    U.S.C. 7112(B)(2), (3), (4), (6) AND (7).
 
    NOTING THAT THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE PARTIES WAS THE ABOVE-NOTED
 ELIGIBILITY ISSUE, AND THAT THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT THE EXISTING
 BARGAINING UNIT IS APPROPRIATE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THE UNIT, AS
 CLARIFIED, IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY WILL DIRECT AN
 ELECTION. /1/
 
                           DIRECTION OF ELECTION
 
    AN ELECTION BY SECRET BALLOT SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY EMPLOYEES IN THE
 UNIT FOUND APPROPRIATE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT LATER THAN 60 DAYS
 FROM THE DATE BELOW.  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR SHALL SUPERVISE THE
 ELECTION, SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.  ELIGIBLE TO
 VOTE ARE THOSE IN THE UNIT 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 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 THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 495, BY THE NURSES' COMMISSION ON COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING, ARIZONA NURSES ASSOCIATION;  OR, BY NEITHER LABOR
 ORGANIZATION.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 19, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
    COPIES OF THE DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY IN THE SUBJECT CASE PROCEEDING HAVE THIS DAY BEEN
 SENT TO THE PARTIES BELOW:
 
    MR. RICHARD H. WEBSTER
 
    AFGE NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 
    P.O. BOX 14385
 
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85063
 
    MS. BETTY MCCARVER, R.N.
 
    ARIZONA NURSES ASSOCIATION
 
    4525 NORTH 12TH STREET
 
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85104
 
    G. V. MORTON
 
    VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL
 
    TUCSON, ARIZONA 85723
 
    MR. ROBERT MCDONALD
 
    810 VERMONT AVENUE (058B)
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
 
    CONGRESSMAN MORRIS K. UDALL
 
    235 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
 
    ATTN:  MS. BETHMINSTER
 
    MR. GORDON E. BREWER
 
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR
 
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    CITY CENTER SQUARE, SUITE 680
 
    1100 MAIN STREET
 
    KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64105
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    /1/ 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 BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE
 CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. 
 
 
 

---