---

 31 FLRA NO. 89

   31 FLRA 1105

    30 MAR 1988
DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL PLANT
EQUIPMENT CENTER (DIPEC)
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

                   Activity

       and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

                   Union/Petitioner

       and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 259

                   Union/Intervenor

Case No. 4-DA-70002

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW AND REMANDING CASE

     I. Statement of the Case

     On February 4, 1988, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
filed a timely application for review on behalf of the Activity
under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations. On February 11, 1988, the Petitioner also filed a
timely application for review. Both applications seek review of
the Regional Director's Decision and Order dismissing a petition
for certification for dues allotment. For the reasons discussed
below, we grant the applications filed in this case and remand
the case to the Regional Director.

     II. Regional Director's Decision

     The Petitioner requested that it be granted a certification
for dues allotment in a nationwide unit of all nonsupervisory
professional and nonprofessional employees of  the Defense
Industrial Plant Equipment center (DIPEC). The Regional Director
concluded that the claimed unit was not appropriate "because it
includes employees of the DIPEC Headquarters office who are
currently in a unit for which National Federation of Federal
Employees (the Intervenor) has been certified for allotment of
dues." RD Decision at 3.

     III. Applications for Review

     A. DLA's Application

     DLA contends that the Regional Director's decision raises
the following substantial questions of law: (1) do the
appropriate unit provisions of section 7112 apply to unit
determinations for purposes of allotments to representatives
under section 7115(c); (2) if the provisions do apply, did the
Regional Director apply them consistent with Authority precedent;
and (3) if the provisions do not apply or if there is an absence
of precedent, were the criteria applied by the Regional Director
consistent with the overall policies and objectives of the
Statute?

     DLA also contends that Regional Director's processing of
this case raises a substantial question of policy because the
processing was not in accordance with Authority precedent and
resulted in prejudicial error. DLA claims that when the
controversy and dispute arose concerning the appropriate unit
question, the Regional Director did not provide an opportunity
for the Activity to present evidence and to argue in support of
its position that the claimed unit was appropriate.

     DLA requests that the Authority remand the case to the
Regional Director to develop a complete record as to whether the
claimed unit is appropriate.

     B. Petitioner's Application

     Petitioner argues that the section 7112 criteria for
determining an appropriate unit apply to unit determinations for
certification for dues allotment under section 7115(c)(1). It
requests that the case be remanded to the Regional Director and
that a hearing be held to develop a complete record of the
case.

     IV. Analysis and Conclusion

     We conclude that compelling reasons exist within the meaning
of section 2422.17(c) for granting the applications for review
filed in this case. The Regional Director's failure to
apply the provisions of section 7112 in making the unit
determination in this case was a departure from Authority
precedent and raises a substantial question of law.

     Appropriate unit determinations for the purposes of
allotments to representatives must be consistent with the
provisions of section 7112 of the Statute. Section 2421.14 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations defines an appropriate unit as
"a grouping of employees found to be appropriate for purposes of
exclusive recognition under 5 U.S.C. 7111, and for purposes of
allotments to representatives under 5 U.S.C. 7115(c), and
consistent with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7112."

     The record in this case indicates that the Regional Director
did not apply the provisions of section 7112 in determining that
the claimed unit was not appropriate for the purposes of
allotments to representatives under section 7115(c). Rather, the
Regional Director determined that the unit was not appropriate
because it included employees in the smaller Headquarters office
unit for which the Intervenor has been certified for allotment of
dues.

     Accordingly, we remand this case to the Regional Director to
develop a full and complete factual record and to apply the
provisions of section 7112 in determining whether the claimed
unit is appropriate for the purposes of allotments to
representatives under section 7115(c).

ORDER

     The applications for review of the Regional Director's
Decision and Order on the petition for certification for dues
allotment are granted, and the case is remanded to the Regional
Director for appropriate action and determinations consistent
with this decision.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., March 30,  1989.

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean McKee, Member

     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 

---