[ v15 p60 ]
15:0060(14)RA
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 14
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
AVIATION STANDARDS NATIONAL FIELD OFFICE
Activity/Petitioner
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2123
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2335
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2555
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3028
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3433
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT
STANDARDS EMPLOYEES
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R8-14
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1340
Labor Organizations
Case No. 6-RA-20004
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNITS
Upon a petition duly filed under section 7111(b)(2) of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), a hearing was
held before a hearing officer of the Authority. The hearing officer's
rulings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the parties'
contentions, the Authority finds:
The petition herein was filed by the Activity pursuant to section
2422.2(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on the basis that an
internal agency reorganization substantially changed the character and
scope of nine existing bargaining units so as to render them no longer
appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition under the Statute.
/1/ The issue before the Authority is whether the record supports the
Activity's contention that the reorganization substantially changed the
scope and character of the nine existing bargaining units in question.
The record reveals that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is
organizationally comprised, in part, of a number of regions which, along
with the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, report
directly to the FAA Administrator. There are also a number of offices,
services and a Technical Center in Atlantic City which report through
one of five Associate Administrators to the FAA Administrator. On July
1, 1982, a reorganization occurred within FAA under which several
existing components were administratively transferred into a new
Aviation Standards National Field Office (AVN). Headquartered in
Oklahoma City, AVN is a tenant organization of the Mike Monroney
Aeronautical Center (Aeronautical Center). The mission of AVN is to
promote safety of flight by assuring the adequacy and accuracy of air
navigation facilities; to develop and standardize flight procedures;
to provide for the maintenance and engineering of the FAA aircraft
fleet; and to provide regulatory and standards development.
Organizationally, AVN consists of an Office of the Director; an
Executive Staff; and three divisions-- Regulatory Support, Flight
Programs, and Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering. Each division
contains various subordinate branches, and the Flight Programs Division
also contains eleven Flight Inspection Field Offices (FIFOs) at various
locations worldwide. The establishment of AVN brought together several
components of the FAA which contained the units of exclusive recognition
that are the subject of the petition herein. Specifically, AVN
organizationally merged 585 positions of the Flight Standards National
Field Office (FSNFO), including its ten FIFOs, which previously had been
located in the Office of Flight Operations; approximately 60 positions
in the Aircraft Services Branch, physically located in and formerly
organizationally a component of the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic
City, New Jersey; 319 positions of the Aircraft Services Base at the
Aeronautical Center; and 58 positions from both the Flight Inspection
District Office and Maintenance Base located in FAA's Alaskan Region.
In sum, 1021 positions were administratively transferred into AVN.
As noted above, nine units of exclusive recognition existed in the
FAA components which were administratively transferred to form AVN.
Four unions represent the nine units as follows: the National
Association of Flight Standards Employees (NAFSE), certified as the
exclusive representative on July 31, 1978, represents in a single unit
various employees of the Regulatory Support and Flight Programs
Divisions, formerly located in FSNFO, as well as employees of the
Atlantic City, Frankfurt, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle FIFOs,
and certain employees of the Atlantic FIFO; the American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) Local 2123, which was granted
recognition on June 14, 1963, represents a unit of employees at the
Atlanta FIFO Maintenance Base; AFGE Local 3433, certified on November
26, 1973, represents a unit of employees at the Battle Creek FIFO; AFGE
Local 2555, recognized on January 3, 1968, represents employees of the
Honolulu and Tokyo FIFOs in a single unit; AFGE Local 2335 was
certified on September 14, 1976, and represents aircraft inspection
personnel at the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City; the National
Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) Local 1340, certified on August
17, 1979, represents a unit consisting of 760 employees at the Technical
Center in Atlantic City, approximately 60 of whom were organizationally
transferred to AVN; the National Association of Government Employees
(NAGE) Local R8-14, recognized on May 19, 1969, represents a unit of
wage grade employees at the Aircraft Services Base, located at the
Aeronautical Center; and AFGE Local 3028 represents two units in the
Alaskan Region-- aircraft mechanics at the Anchorage Aircraft
Maintenance Base, recognized on September 10, 1968, and employees of the
Anchorage FIFO, which unit was granted recognition on June 10, 1966.
The Activity takes the position that these nine bargaining units are
no longer appropriate as a result of the reorganization which
established AVN for the following reasons: the Activity's components
which had granted exclusive recognition with respect to the foregoing
bargaining units no longer exist following the reorganization; the
employees in each of the units do not share a community of interest
separate and distinct from the employees in the other units or from
other AVN employees; and the administration of nine separate units with
potentially as many different collective bargaining agreements would not
promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. The
Activity further argues that a unit consisting of all eligible AVN
employees would constitute an appropriate unit under the Statute. The
unions argue essentially that the reorganization did not change the
scope and character of the existing units so as to render them
inappropriate for purposes of exclusive recognition.
Section 7135(a)(1) of the Statute provides for the continuation of
exclusive recognitions in existence before the effective date of the
Statute. /2/ Where an agency seeks to challenge the continuation of an
exclusively recognized unit, it may do so by filing a petition pursuant
to the Authority's Rules and Regulations, such as that filed by the
Activity herein under section 2422.2(b), set forth at n.1, supra. In
the instant case, the Activity claimed that an internal reorganization
had rendered inappropriate nine preexisting units of exclusive
recognition. The Authority therefore must determine, based on the
record evidence, whether the reorganization has substantially changed
the character and scope of any of the units so that the Activity is no
longer required to recognize the incumbent labor organization(s) as the
exclusive representative(s) of the employees in such unit(s). See,
e.g., Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic
Regional Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 11 FLRA No. 104 (1983).
See also Western Regional Office, National Park Service, San Francisco,
California, 10 FLRA No. 86 (1982). The effect of the reorganization on
each unit in question will be examined in turn below.
As noted above, the creation of AVN merged four existing
organizational components. First, with regard to the Flight Standards
National Field Office, the record indicates that prior to the
reorganization, this component was located in the Office of Flight
Operations and consisted of seven branches and ten FIFOs (all those
which are currently in existence with the exception of the Anchorage
FIFO). Units of exclusive recognition existed in certain branches and
the ten FIFOs by the unions which continued to represent the employees
after the reorganization. /3/ Additionally, the record indicates that
certain of these units existed in FSNFO's predecessor, so that several
of the units which were transferred to AVN and which the Activity claims
to be no longer appropriate as a result of the establishment of AVN
existed in two predecessor organizations.
Prior to the reorganization, FSNFO reported to the Associate
Administrator for Aviation Standards who reported to the FAA
Administrator. Personnel services for FSNFO employees were provided by
the Aeronautical Center and FSNFO constituted a separate employing
jurisdiction. Policy guidance for FSNFO was provided by the Office of
Flight Operations. Following the reorganization, the employees formerly
in FSNFO and now in AVN continue to be serviced by the Aeronautical
Center, and AVN similarly reports to the Associate Administrator for
Aviation Standards who reports to the FAA Administrator. Policy
guidance continues to be provided by the Office of Flight Operations.
In terms of working conditions, the record further reveals that the
employees of the former FSNFO continue to perform the same duties, under
the same immediate supervision, and in the same physical location as
prior to the reorganization. The competitive area for
reductions-in-force is the local commuting area, as is the area of
consideration for certain merit promotion positions. The area of
consideration for other merit promotion positions is AVN-wide.
In the Authority's view, the scope and character of the units of
exclusive recognition represented by AFGE Local 2123 at the Atlanta FIFO
Maintenance Base; AFGE Local 3433 at the Battle Creek FIFO; and NAFSE
in the Regulatory Support and Flight Programs Divisions, the Atlantic
City, Frankfurt, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle FIFOs and part of
the Atlanta FIFO were not substantially changed by the reorganization
which resulted in the establishment of AVN. Thus, the units of
employees previously represented in FSNFO were transferred intact into
AVN; the employees continue to be serviced by the Aeronautical Center;
have the same overall reporting structure; receive policy guidance from
the same office; and the employees perform the same duties under the
same immediate supervision and in the same physical location as they did
prior to the reorganization. Under these circumstances, the Authority
finds that the reorganization did not substantially change the character
and scope of these existing units and that they should continue to be
exclusively represented by AFGE Local 2123, AFGE Local 3433 and NAFSE,
respectively. /4/
With regard to the employees in the Tokyo and Honolulu FIFOs, the
record reveals that they have been represented, along with other
employees located elsewhere in the Pacific, in a single unit by AFGE
Local 2555 since 1968. In 1981, the employees assigned to the Tokyo and
Honolulu FIFOs were transferred into FSNFO and thereafter into AVN.
Prior to 1981, the employees in the Tokyo and Honolulu FIFOs were part
of FAA's Western-pacific Region. As such, they reported through the
Region to the FAA Administrator, were in the Region's employing
jurisdiction and were serviced by the Region's personnel division.
Since the establishment of AVN, these employees are now assigned to
AVN's Flight Programs Division, have a different reporting structure,
are in a different employing jurisdiction and are serviced by a
different personnel office. In view of these factors, the Authority
finds that the unit of employees represented by AFGE Local 2555 must be
clarified to exclude those employees assigned to the Tokyo and Honolulu
FIFOs. /5/ In so concluding, the Authority does not pass upon whether
the unit represented by AFGE Local 2555, excluding such employees,
continues to be appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition
inasmuch as that question has not been raised herein and the record
therefore contains insufficient evidence on which to base a
determination.
The second component which was merged into AVN consisted of two units
of employees represented by AFGE Local 3028 and located in FAA's Alaskan
Region: The Aircraft Maintenance Unit which was recognized in 1968 and
the Anchorage FIFO originally recognized in 1966. When AVN was created,
these two units of employees were established as the Anchorage FIFO
which is organizationally a part of AVN's Flight Programs Division, as
are the other ten FIFOs, and which now reports through Flight Programs
to the Director of AVN who in turn reports to the FAA Administrator.
Prior to the reorganization, the employees reported through the Region
to the FAA Administrator, were serviced by the Region's personnel
division, and were in the Region's employing jurisdiction. Now, the
employees are serviced by the Aeronautical Center for personnel and
labor relations matters; are in a different employing jurisdiction;
are subject to different personnel policies and practices; have
different reporting lines and different overall supervision; and have a
new and expanded mission. Based upon the foregoing, the Authority finds
that the reorganization has substantially changed the character and
scope of these units so that the Activity is no longer obligated to
recognize AFGE Local 3028 as the exclusive representative of such units.
The third component to become a part of AVN was the Aircraft Services
Base in which NAGE Local R8-14 has represented a unit of wage grade
employees since 1969. Located physically in and formerly
organizationally a component of the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in
Oklahoma City, the Aircraft Services Base was essentially reconstituted
in AVN as part of the Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Division, one
of AVN's three divisions. Additionally, two units which were formerly
assigned to the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City, and which will be
discussed more fully below, were transferred organizationally into this
Division. The Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Division has
technical authority over the maintenance functions performed in the
FIFOs. One branch of the Division (AVN-310) performs this function for
nine FIFOs, which another branch (AVN-350) performs the function for the
Atlantic City FIFO, and yet a third branch (AVN-330) handles the
Oklahoma City FIFO. Additionally, this Division has expanded the scope
of its responsibilities by exercising a maintenance function over
additional FAA aircraft. Prior to the reorganization, the Aircraft
Services Base reported to the Director of the Aeronautical Center who
reported to the FAA Administrator. The reorganization altered this
reporting line so that now the Division reports to the Director of AVN
who reports to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Standards who in
turn reports to the Administrator. Both before and after the
reorganization, the Aeronautical Center provided personnel services,
although the employees were a part of the Aircraft Services Base
employing jurisdiction prior to the reorganization, while they are now a
part of AVN's employing jurisdiction.
The Authority finds that the reorganization has substantially altered
the character and scope of this unit. Thus, the employees now report to
a different supervisory structure, are in a different employing
jurisdiction, have expanded responsibilities, and are assigned to a
division together with other AVN employees. Under these circumstances,
the Authority finds that the Activity is under no obligation to continue
to recognize NAGE Local R8-14 as the exclusive representative in this
unit.
The fourth component from which employees were transferred into AVN
is the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey. As noted
previously, there were two units of exclusive recognition which were
affected by the transfer: a unit of employees represented by AFGE Local
2335; and approximately 60 employees in a larger unit represented by
NFFE Local 1340, which continues to represent the approximately 700
employees who did not functionally transfer into AVN. Although
physically located at the Technical Center, these employees were
organizationally transferred into the Aircraft Maintenance and
Engineering Division, which, as noted above, also contains employees
previously assigned to the Aircraft Services Base. Prior to the
reorganization, the Personnel Management Division at the Technical
Center provided personnel and labor relations services to the employees
in these units, whereas the Aeronautical Center is now performing this
function. Additionally, these employees, who were previously part of
the Technical Center employing jurisdiction, are now a part of the AVN
employing jurisdiction. The reporting lines are different inasmuch as
the employees currently report through AVN to the Administrator, whereas
previously they had reported through the Technical Center to the
Associate Administrator for Development and Logistics who then reported
to the Administrator.
In the Authority's view, the character and scope of the unit of
employees represented by AFGE Local 2335 was substantially changed as a
result of the reorganization and the Activity is no longer obligated to
recognize Local 2335 as the exclusive representative of such unit.
Thus, the employees are in a different employing jurisdiction, are
serviced by a different personnel office, have a different reporting
structure, and are functionally merged with other AVN employees. As to
the unit of employees represented by NFFE Local 1340, the Authority
finds that such unit must be clarified to exclude therefrom the
approximately 60 employees who were organizationally transferred into
AVN. Thus, such employees have been placed in a different employing
jurisdiction, are serviced by a different personnel office, have a
different reporting structure, and are functionally merged with other
AVN employees.
To summarize, the Authority finds that following the establishment of
AVN, the units of exclusive recognition represented by AFGE Local 2123
in the Atlanta FIFO Maintenance Base; AFGE Local 3433 in the Battle
Creek FIFO; and NAFSE in the Regulatory Support and Flight Programs
Divisions, the Atlantic City, Frankfurt, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and
Seattle FIFOs, and part of the Atlanta FIFO, remain substantially
unchanged and that the Activity is required to continue to recognize
them for the purpose of exclusive recognition under the Statute.
Accordingly, the RA petition shall be dismissed with respect to these
units. The Authority further finds that the reorganization has
substantially changed the character and scope of the two units
represented by AFGE Local 3028 in the Anchorage FIFO; NAGE Local R8-14
in the Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Division; and AFGE Local
2335 in the Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Division, and therefore
the Activity is no longer required to recognize the respective labor
organizations as the exclusive representatives of the employees in those
units. Accordingly, the petition shall be granted with respect to these
units. Additionally, with regard to these units, the evidence presented
was insufficient to establish that, as a result of the reorganization,
the employees previously represented in such units had been added or
accreted to any remaining units or exclusive recognition, or that they
had been combined with other employees so as to create a new appropriate
unit warranting an election. /6/ Finally, the Authority shall clarify
the unit represented by AFGE Local 2555 to exclude employees of the
Tokyo and Honolulu FIFOs, and the unit represented by NFFE Local 1340 to
exclude employees organizationally transferred into AVN. /7/
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 6-RA-20004
challenging the continued appropriateness of the unit of employees
assigned to the Aircraft Maintenance Unit in Anchorage, Alaska, for
which the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3028 was
granted recognition in 1968; the unit of employees in the Anchorage,
Alaska, Flight Inspection District Office, for which the American
Federation of Government Employees, Lodge (Local) 3028 was granted
recognition in 1966; the unit of wage grade employees in the Aircraft
Services Base, for which the National Association of Government
Employees, Local R8-14 was granted recognition in 1969; and the unit of
General Schedule employees in the Quality Control Section, Aviation
Facilities Division, National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, for which the American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 2335 was certified on September 14, 1976,
be, and it hereby is, granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unit of employees assigned to the
Tokyo and Honolulu Flight Inspection Groups, the Manila Avionics
Maintenance and Calibration Unit, and the Aircraft Management Branch,
for which the American Federation of Government Employees, Lodge (Local)
2555 was granted recognition on January 3, 1968, be clarified to exclude
therefrom the employees assigned to the Tokyo and Honolulu Flight
Inspection Field Offices in the Aviation Standards National Field
Office.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated unit of nonprofessional
employees of the staff and line divisions of the National Aviation
Facilities Experimental Center, for which the National Federation of
Federal Employees, Local 1340 was certified on August 7, 1979, be
clarified to exclude therefrom the employees assigned to the Aviation
Standards National Field Office.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 6-RA-20004 to the
extent that it challenges the continued appropriateness of the
bargaining units represented by the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2123, the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3433; and the National Association of Flight
Standards Employees be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., June 8, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Section 2422.2(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
provides as follows:
Sec. 2422.2 Contents of petition; procedures for consolidation
of existing exclusively recognized units; filing and service of
petition; challenges to petition.
(b) Activity or agency petition seeking clarification of a
matter relating to representation; employee petition for an
election to determine whether a labor organization should cease to
be an exclusive representative. (1) A petition by an activity or
agency shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the Authority
and shall contain . . . a statement that the activity or agency
has a good faith doubt, based on objective considerations, that
the currently recognized or certified labor organization
represents a majority of the employees in the existing unit, or a
statement that because of a substantial change in the character
and scope of the unit, the agency or activity has a good faith
doubt that such unit is now appropriate. Attached to the petition
shall be a detailed explanation of the reasons supporting the good
faith doubt.
See also section 2422.1(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
to the same effect.
/2/ Section 7135(a)(1) of the Statute provides as follows:
Sec. 7135. Continuation of existing laws, recognitions,
agreements, and procedures
(a) Nothing contained in this chapter shall preclude--
(1) the renewal or continuation of an exclusive recognition,
certification of an exclusive representative, or a lawful
agreement between an agency and an exclusive representative of its
employees, which is entered into before the effective date of this
chapter(.)
/3/ The record indicates that the Oklahoma City FIFO, previously
represented by AFGE, was, on some unspecified date, decertified.
/4/ See, e.g., Defense Contracts Administration Services Region,
Boston, Massachusetts, 8 FLRA No. 66 (1982), with respect to the
Singer-Link and IBM Owego units.
/5/ See United States Department of the Navy, Naval Avionics Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana, 11 FLRA No. 98 (1983), and cases cited therein.
/6/ While it has been found that certain units are no longer in
existence and that, therefore, the Activity is under no obligation to
recognize the exclusive representatives with respect to the employees
formerly in these units, it is noted that this finding would not
preclude the exclusive representatives involved herein, or any other
within the agency from seeking, through an appropriate clarification of
unit petition, a determination as to whether or not any of these
employees have accreted to any existing exclusively recognized unit at
the Activity, which none of the labor organizations here sought to do,
or for any labor organization to seek through an appropriate petition a
determination as to whether or not a new unit (or units) appropriate for
the purpose of exclusive recognition, have been established as a result
of the establishment of AVN.
/7/ In view of the foregoing findings, noting particularly that
certain units have remained appropriate following the establishment of
AVN, the appropriateness of an AVN-wide unit.