31:0018(6)CU - Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, Bastrop, TX and AFGE Local 3828 -- 1988 FLRAdec RP

 31 FLRA NO. 6

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
BASTROP, TEXAS

                    Activity

        and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3828

                   Union

                                                  Case No. 6-CU-70007
 
                 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

     I. Statement of the Case

     This case is before the Authority on an application filed by
the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local
3828 (the Union) under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's
Rules and Regulations, seeking review of the Regional Director's
Decision and Order Clarifying Unit. The Regional Director found
that an employee should be excluded from the bargaining unit
because she is a confidential employee within the meaning of
section 7103 (a) (13) of the Federal Service Labor - Management
Relations Statute (the Statute). The Union contends that
compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c)
of our Rules and Regulations for granting the application. We
find that no  compelling reasons exist and we therefore deny the
application.

     II. Background and Regional Director's Decision

     In 1968, the American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL - CIO (AFGE) was certified as the exclusive representative
for an agencywide unit of employees of the Bureau of Prisons. The
Union is the administrative entity servicing unit members at the
Federal Correctional Institution, Bastrop, Texas (the Activity).
In May 1987, AFGE filed a petition seeking to clarify the status
of Frances Crump, the Associate Wardens' Secretary. The 
Activity contended that Ms. Crump should be excluded from the
unit because she is a confidential employee within the meaning of
section 7103(a)(13) of the Statute.

     In his Decision and Order, the Regional Director determined
that: (1) the Associate Warden of Operations is an individual who
formulates or effectuates policies in the field of
labor-management relations at the Activity; (2)  Ms. Crump is
given secretarial assignments by all of the Associate Wardens;
(3) at the time she assumed the full-time duties of her position,
Ms. Crump was informed by the Associate Warden of Operations that
she would be given assignments in the area of labor-management
relations and in related confidential matters; (4) the position
description of the Associate Wardens' Secretary shows that Ms.
Crump has been assigned responsibility for typing and maintaining
files on labor-management relations matters, and Ms. Crump has
unrestricted access to those files; and (5) Ms. Crump has
prepared proposed disciplinary and adverse action letters, types
evaluation and investigative reports, and has performed some
confidential typing tasks for departmental heads involving
discipline of staff members. The Regional Director found that Ms.
Crump is a confidential employee within the meaning of section
7103(a)(13) because she works in a confidential capacity to an
individual who formulates or effectuates management policies in
the field of labor-management relations. Accordingly, the
Regional Director excluded her from the bargaining unit.

     III. Application for Review

     In its application, the Union contends that the following
compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c)
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for granting the
application: (1) a substantial question of law or policy is
raised because of the absence of, or a departure from, Authority
precedent; and (2)  the Regional Director's decision on a
substantial factual issue is clearly erroneous so as to
prejudicially affect the rights of a party.

     Specifically, the Union contends that the Regional Director
departed from Authority precedent when he determined that: (1)
the Associate Warden of Operations is an employee engaged in
labor-management relations; and (2)  Ms. Crump acts in a
confidential capacity to the Associate Warden of Operations when
he is performing labor-management relations duties. The Union
further argues that the Warden alone formulates labor-management
relations policies at the  Activity and that the duties
of both the Associate Warden of Operations and Ms. crump in the
labor-management relations area are minimal and do not support
the Regional Director's findings.

     IV. Discussion

     On consideration of the Union's application for review, we
conclude that no  compelling reasons exist within the meaning of
section 2422.17(c) of the Statute for granting the application.
Rather, the application in essence expresses mere disagreement
with the Regional Director's findings which are based on record
evidence and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous or to
have prejudicially affected the rights of any party. See, for
example, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Leavenworth
Kansas and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL -
CIO, Local 85, 28 FLRA  177 (1987).

     V. Order

     The application for review of the Regional Director's
Decision and Order Clarifying Unit is denied.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1988.

                          Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

                          Jean McKee, Member

                          FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY