16:0396(64)NG - AFGE Local 1285 and Air Force, HQ 1606th Air Base Wing (MAC), Kirtland AFB, NM -- 1984 FLRAdec NG
[ v16 p396 ]
16:0396(64)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
16 FLRA No. 64 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1285 Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, HEADQUARTERS 1606TH AIR BASE WING (MAC), KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO Activity Case No. O-NG-1053 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW This case is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute on a petition for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union. From the submissions of the parties, the record before the Authority in this case indicates that during the course of negotiations, the Union submitted several proposals concerning employee training on the Activity's new appraisal and promotion system. Apparently, the Activity orally declared the Union's proposals to be nonnegotiable, but did not respond to the Union's written request for an allegation of nonnegotiability. The Union filed the instant petition for review with the Authority pursuant to section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, as to whether the disputed proposals were within the duty to bargain. Subsequently in a letter to the Authority dated October 4, 1984, the Agency withdrew the Activity's allegation of nonnegotiability. Since the Agency has withdrawn the allegation of nonnegotiability concerning the Union's proposals, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposals in this case are within the parties' duty to bargain under the Statute. Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the petition for review in this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the Union refiling should the Agency reassert the proposals to be nonnegotiable. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., November 8, 1984 Jan K. Bohren Executive Director/Administrator ACTION EMPLOYEES UNION, AFSCME LOCAL 2017 Union and ACTION Agency Case No. O-NG-1011 (16 FLRA No. 11) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION This case is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration filed by the Union on October 11, 1984, seeking reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order of September 24, 1984. For the reason set forth below, the motion must be denied. Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, effective September 10, 1981, provides in pertinent part: 2429.17 Reconsideration. After a final decision or order of the Authority has been issued, a party to the proceeding before the Authority who can establish in its moving papers extraordinary circumstances for so doing, may move for reconsideration of such final decision or order. The motion shall be filed within 10 days after service of the Authority's decision or order . . . . The Authority's Decision and Order was dated and served on the Union by mail on September 24, 1984. Therefore, under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, and sections 2429.21 and 2429.22, which are also applicable to the computation of the time limit here involved, the Union's motion for reconsideration was due in the national office of the Authority before the close of business on October 9, 1984. Since, as indicated above, the Union's motion was not filed until October 11, 1984, it is clearly untimely and must be denied. Accordingly, for the reason set forth above, the Union's motion for reconsideration in this case is hereby denied. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984 Jan K. Bohren Executive Director/Administrator ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, PENNSYLVANIA STATE COUNCIL Union and PENNSYLVANIA ARMY AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD Activity Case No. O-NG-613 14 FLRA No. 6 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION This case is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration filed by the National Guard Bureau on behalf of the Pennsylvania Army and Air National Guard on March 29, 1984, seeking, in essence, reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order of February 13, 1984 in the above entitled matter, as it relates to Union Proposal 1. For the reasons set forth below, the motion must be denied. Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides in part, that a party "who can establish . . . extraordinary circumstances . . . may move for reconsideration" of a decision of the Authority. In support of its motion for reconsideration, the Agency contends that the proposal is inconsistent with an Agency regulation and "with policies expressed throughout the rest of the Federal Government." However, the Agency did not initially assert these arguments in stating its position in full pursuant to section 2424.6 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Nor was it otherwise apparent from the record that Union Proposal 1 was outside the Agency's bargaining obligation. In this latter regard, see the discussion in American Federation of Government Employees Local 32, AFL-CIO and Office of Personnel Management, 14 FLRA No. 98 (1984), appeal docketed sub nom. Local 32, AFGE v. FLRA, 84-1250 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 1984), at 2 with respect to the instant case. Thus, the Agency's motion is merely an effort to raise arguments which could have been, but were not, previously proffered in the course of the review proceeding. The Authority concludes that, in light of the above, the National Guard Bureau has failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Activity and NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION Labor Organization/Petitioner and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO Labor Organization/Incumbent Case No. 3-RO-20005 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW The Petitioner's request for review seeks reversal of the Regional Director's dismissal of its representation petition filed with the Authority under section 7111 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), in which it sought to represent a unit of Attorneys (series 905) who are currently a part of an existing consolidated bargaining unit of the Social Security Administration exclusively represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (the Incumbent). In seeking their severance from the consolidated bargaining unit, the Petitioner contends that the Office of Hearings and Appeals Attorneys /1/ are an appropriate unit within the meaning of section 7112(a)(1) of the Statute, and that the Incumbent has failed to properly represent the petitioned for employees in the consolidated bargaining unit. In support of its contention, the Petitioner submitted affidavits from Attorneys in the petitioned for unit. The Regional Director dismissed the petition, noting particularly that the Petitioner had submitted an insufficient showing of interest based on the number of employees in the consolidated bargaining unit and, further, that the evidence was "insufficient to support a failure to represent on the part of the incumbent or otherwise support the Petitioner's contention that the unit is no longer appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining." In its request for review, the Petitioner argues that the Regional Director applied the wrong standard in determining the adequacy of its showing of interest. The Authority agrees. The Authority finds that a petition which seeks to sever a unit of employees from an existing collective bargaining unit must be accompanied by a 30 percent showing of interest among the employees in the unit sought in the petition. In so finding, the Authority notes that section 7111(f)(2) of the Statute provides in relevant part that exclusive recognition shall not be accorded to a labor organization "if there is not credible evidence that at least 30 percent of the employees in the unit specified in the petition wish to be represented for the purpose of collective bargaining by the labor organization seeking exclusive recognition(.)" /2/ Accordingly, the Regional Director improperly based his dismissal, in part, on the Petitioner's insufficient showing of interest with respect to the overall consolidated unit. However, the Authority disagrees with the Petitioner's contention that the Regional Director applied an improper legal standard for determining whether to conduct a hearing on its petition. Section 7111(b)(2) of the Statute provides in pertinent part that "the Authority shall investigate the petition, and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation exists, it shall provide an opportunity for a hearing . . . ." In agreement with the Regional Director, the Authority concludes that the record contains insufficient evidence to support a failure to represent on the part of the Incumbent or otherwise to support the Petitioner's contention that the established unit is no longer appropriate so as to give rise to a question of representation concerning the petitioned-for unit. Thus, the Authority finds that the Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation exists so as to warrant a notice of hearing in this matter. Accordingly, the request for review, seeking reversal of the Regional Director's dismissal of the subject representation petition, is hereby denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES DISTRICT Activity and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES Union Case No. O-AR-792 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Joseph F. Gentile filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 29, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, NCSSAFOL-COUNCIL 220 Union Case No. O-AR-811 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator John E. Sands filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 29, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2110 Union and VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Activity Case No. O-AR-827 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Herbert Oestreich filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 29, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2578 Union Case No. O-AR-458 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Seymour Strongin filed by the Activity under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Activity has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Activity's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 12 Union and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT TRAINING ADMINISTRATION Activity Case No. O-AR-477 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator James M. Harkless filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1917 Union and UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE Activity Case No. O-AR-525 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator George Moskowitz filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984 Henry B. Frazier, III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY LOCAL 2885, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES Union and U.S. ARMY, MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT COMMAND, EASTERN AREA Activity Case No. O-AR-765 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Louis Yagoda filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482 Union and MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS, BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA Activity Case No. O-AR-783 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Robert D. Steinberg filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1904 Union and U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS COMMAND, FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY Activity Case No. O-AR-813 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Joseph P. Doyle filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923 Union and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Case No. O-AR-816 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator George L. Powell filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO Union and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Case No. O-AR-738 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Justin C. Smith filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Agency has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984 Henry B. Frazier, III Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, FORT POLK, LOUISIANA Activity and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION R5-168 Union Case No. O-AR-821 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Paul Barron filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984 Henry B. Frazier, III Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ The Petitioner currently represents, in another unit, all of the remaining attorneys (series 905) of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration. /2/ See also section 2422.2(a)(9) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations which states: The petition shall be accompanied by a showing of interest of not less than thirty percent (30%) of the employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate . . . .