---

 13 FLRA No. 51
 
 U.S. ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT
 PERSONNEL SUPPORT AGENCY,
 NORTHEAST REGION (RESERVE)
 Activity
 
 and
 
 LOCAL 2204, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Petitioner /1/
 
                                            Case No. 2-RO-30006
 
                    DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
 
    Upon a petition duly filed with the Authority under section
 7111(b)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
 (the Statute), 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.
 
    Upon the entire record in this case, including the parties'
 contentions, the Authority finds:  The Petitioner, Local 2204, American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) seeks to exclusively
 represent all nonprofessional employees of the U.S. Army Medical
 Department, Personnel Support Agency, Northeast Region (Reserve)
 specifically including Military Personnel Staffing Technicians employed
 at Fort Hamilton, New York;  Utica, New York;  Buffalo, New York;
 Fitchburg, Massachusetts;  Willow Grove, Pennsylvania;  and Hartford,
 Connecticut.  The Activity contends that the employees in question are
 all "engaged in personnel work in other than a purely clerical capacity"
 within the meaning of section 7112(b)(3) of the Statute, and therefore
 the petitioned for unit is inappropriate.  /3/
 
    The Activity, one of the five regions of the Army Medical Department,
 Personnel Support Agency is responsible for recruiting physicians and
 other health care professionals for the Army Reserve.  The Activity is
 composed of a headquarters and six field offices and is staffed by
 approximately 12 Army Reserve Health Care Commissioned Officers and 12
 Military Personnel Staffing Technicians (Technicians).  The parties
 stipulated at the hearing that the Technicians, the employees sought to
 be represented by AFGE, all perform the same duties and are engaged in
 military personnel work in other than a purely clerical capacity.
 
    The Authority finds, contrary to the Activity's contentions, that the
 petitioned for Technicians are not employees engaged in personnel work
 in other than a purely clerical capacity within the meaning of section
 7112(b)(3) of the Statute.  While it is clear that, in recruiting
 qualified candidates for careers in the Army Reserve, they perform work
 that relates in some way to personnel matters for their employing
 agency, it does not follow that the Technicians are "engaged in
 personnel work" within the meaning of the Statute.  In this regard, the
 Authority notes particularly that the individuals at issue are involved
 in recruiting and processing applicants for enlistment in the military
 reserves only, and that those selected for such military positions are
 specifically excluded by section 7103(a)(2) of the Statute from the
 definition of "employee" and cannot be included in any bargaining unit
 under the Statute.  Accordingly, the Authority finds that the
 Technicians encompassed by the petition herein are not engaged in the
 kind of work which would give rise to a conflict of interest between
 their job responsibilities and union representation.  /3/ It follows
 that they should not be prevented from exercising rights to
 representation under the Statute on the basis of section 7112(b)(3).
 /4/
 
    The parties stipulated and the Authority finds, in accordance with
 the criteria set forth in section 7112 of the Statute, that the
 following constitutes an appropriate unit:
 
          All nonprofessional employees of the U.S. Army Medical
       Department, Personnel Support Agency, Northeast Region (Reserve)
       specifically including Military Personnel Staffing Technicians
       employed at Fort Hamilton, New York;  Utica, New York;  Buffalo,
       New York;  Fitchburg, Massachusetts;  Willow Grove, Pennsylvania;
       and Hartford, Connecticut excluding professional employees,
       management officials, supervisors and employees described in 5 USC
       7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
 
                           DIRECTION OF ELECTION
 
    An election by secret ballot shall be conducted among the employees
 in the unit described above as soon as feasible.  The appropriate
 Regional Director shall supervise or conduct the election, as
 appropriate, subject to the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  Eligible
 to vote are those in the voting group who were employed during the
 payroll period immediately preceding the date below, including employees
 who did not work during the period because they were out ill, or on
 vacation or 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 those who have not been rehired or reinstated before the
 election date.  Those eligible shall vote on whether or not they desire
 to be represented for the purpose of exclusive recognition by Local
 2204, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.  Issued,
 Washington, D.C., October 14, 1983
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing.
 
 
    /2/ Section 7112(b)(3) provides in pertinent part:
 
          (b) A unit shall not be determined to be appropriate . . . if
       it includes--
 
                                .  .  .  .
 
          (3) an employee engaged in personnel work in other than a
       purely clerical capacity(.)
 
 
    /3/ The Activity contends that the Reserve Officers recruited by the
 Technicians may become Reserve Officer "Counselors" and possibly a
 Technicians' supervisor, thus creating a conflict of interest.  Noting
 the remoteness of this possibility, the Authority finds no merit in this
 argument.
 
 
    /4/ U.S. Army District Recruiting Command-Philadelphia, 12 FLRA No.
 85 (1983). 
 
 
 

---