[ v15 p858 ]
15:0858(162)RA
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 162
DULUTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
4787th AIR BASE GROUP
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
Activity/Petitioner /1/
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 502, AFL-CIO
Labor Organization
Case No. 5-RA-30001
and
DULUTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
4787th AIR BASE GROUP
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
Activity /1/
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1997, AFL-CIO
Petitioner
Case No. 5-AC-30003
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority
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 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, the Authority finds: Since
1967, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 502, AFL-CIO,
(AFGE Local 502) has been the exclusive representative of a unit
consisting of all appropriated fund eligible Air Force employees in the
commuting areas of Burdette, Duluth and Finland, Minnesota who are
serviced by the Civilian Personnel Office, 4787th Air Base Group, Duluth
International Airport, Duluth, Minnesota. /2/ On October 10, 1981, the
Air Force announced its decision to phase out the active Air Force
support units at Duluth International Airport. By the end of September
1982, the Airport was effectively terminated as an active Air Force
facility. During this period the unit went from 350 appropriated fund
employees who were represented by AFGE Local 502 to a caretaker force of
some 30 employees. These employees were converted from career status to
term appointments of from 1 to 4 years.
The final collective bargaining agreement between the Activity and
AFGE Local 502 terminated on October 1, 1981. On June 25, 1982, AFGE
Local 502's Secretary-Treasurer sent a letter to the Activity stating
that AFGE Local 502 would "officially disband" on June 30, 1982, but
that some of the caretaker employees at the Airport wanted to keep their
benefits as members of the American Federation of Government Employees
and that their dues remissions should henceforth be submitted to
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1997, AFL-CIO (AFGE
Local 1997), which represents employees at the Minneapolis Air Force
Base. The letter made no statement about the continued representation
of the Activity's employees. There is no record evidence regarding the
representation of the caretaker employees at any time between the June
25, 1982 letter from AFGE Local 502 and the filing of the AC petition by
AFGE Local 1997 on March 16, 1983. The AC petition was accompanied by a
letter from the National Vice President of AFGE to a Field Agent in
Region V of the Federal Labor Relations Authority which states that AFGE
Local 502 has "officially been merged" with AFGE Local 1997 and that
AFGE "retains recognition" for the caretaker force of the Activity.
In Case No. 5-RA-30001, the Activity/Petitioner contends that it has
a good faith doubt as to the continued majority status of AFGE Local 502
based on the letter the Activity received from the exclusive
representative in late June 1982 to the effect that it was officially
disbanding, and the lack of any active representation of the Activity's
employees since that time. Alternatively, the Activity/Petitioner
alleges a good faith doubt as to the continuing appropriateness of the
unit subsequent to the reorganization and the closing of the Activity as
an active Air Force facility. AFGE Local 1997, by its petition in Case
No. 5-AC-30003, contends that AFGE Local 502 merged with AFGE Local 1997
and it seeks to amend the certification of representation to reflect the
fact that AFGE Local 1997 is the exclusive representative of the
Activity's employees. In support of its AC petition, AFGE Local 1997
contends that it has continued to represent the interests of the
Activity's caretaker employees and that the unit for which AFGE Local
502 was certified remains viable for the purpose of exclusive
representation despite its diminished size.
Section 2422.2(b)(1) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
provides, in pertinent part, that an activity or agency petition seeking
clarification of a matter relating to representation shall, among other
things, 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." /3/ Based on the facts set forth above,
the Authority concludes that the Activity/Petitioner has established a
reasonable basis for its good faith doubt that AFGE Local 502, or a
successor, represents a majority of the employees in the existing unit.
Thus, AFGE Local 502, by its letter of June 25, 1982 to the Activity,
indicated that it would no longer function after June 30, 1982. While
the Union's letter sought to have the Activity transfer dues checkoff to
another AFGE local, the letter did not state that AFGE Local 502 was
being merged with AFGE Local 1997 or that the Activity should otherwise
treat AFGE Local 1997 as the successor to AFGE Local 502 and the
exclusive representative of its employees. Further, there is no record
evidence that AFGE Local 1997 sought to act as the representative of the
Activity's caretaker employees at any time between AFGE Local 502's
disclaimer and the filing of the Activity/Petitioner's RA petition in
February, 1983. Accordingly, the Authority concludes that the employees
of the Activity/Petitioner have not had an exclusive representative
since June 30, 1982, and that since that date the Activity/Petitioner
has had no statutory bargaining obligation to the former exclusive
representative. The Authority therefore concludes that there is no
basis for amending the exclusive recognition for the
Activity/Petitioner's employees as sought by AFGE Local 1997 in its AC
petition in Case No. 5-AC-30003.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 5-RA-30001 challenging
the continued representation of a unit of all Air Force employees of the
4787th Air Base Group, Duluth International Airport, Duluth, Minnesota,
for which the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 502,
AFL-CIO, has been the recognized exclusive representative be, and it
hereby is, granted since the Activity/Petitioner's bargaining obligation
no longer exists.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 5-AC-30003
seeking to change the name of the exclusive representative of the
employees of the 4787th Air Base Group, Duluth International Airport,
Duluth, Minnesota, from American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 502, AFL-CIO to American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1997, AFL-CIO, be and it hereby is, denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 30, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The name of the Activity appears as amended at the hearing.
/2/ AFGE Local 502 had previously represented various Air Force
elements which were included in the 1967 grant of exclusive recognition.
By 1982, the Air Force no longer maintained facilities at Burdette or
Finland, Minnesota.
/3/ Section 2422.2(b)(1) of the Rules and Regulations states in full:
(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 the information set forth in paragraph (a) of
this section, except paragraphs (a)(6) and (9) of this section,
and 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.