---

32 FLRA No. 83

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

HEADQUARTERS, 97TH U.S.
ARMY RESERVE COMMAND
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND
Activity/Petitioner

and 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R3-112
Labor Organization

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCALS 1900, 2375, 2739
and 3742, AFL-CIO
Labor Organizations

Case No. 3-CU-70013

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 (AFGE). The application was filed on behalf of AFGE Locals 1900, 2375, 2739 and 3742 under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The application seeks review of the Regional Director's Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Decision and Order on Petition for Clarification of Unit.

The Activity, Headquarters, 97th U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland (97th Arcom), filed a petition for clarification of a bargaining unit. The Activity sought a determination as to whether, due to a reorganization within the First United States Army (First Army), certain aviation support facility (ASF) employees should be accreted to the bargaining unit exclusively represented by the National Association of Government Employees, Local R3-112 (NAGE) or whether such ASF employees should remain in the four certified units represented by AFGE.

The Regional Director concluded that the employees accreted to the unit represented by NAGE. AFGE seeks review of the Regional Director's decision under section 2422.17(c)(1) and (4) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

We find that no compelling reasons exist within the meaning of the Rules and Regulations for granting the application for review. Accordingly, we deny the application.

II. Background

In 1987, the First Army reorganized its seven aviation support facilities. The First Army activated the 31st Combat Aviation Group (31st CAG) in order to consolidate the seven aviation units into a single aviation group. The 31st CAG was assigned to the 97th Arcom as a subordinate command.

Prior to the reorganization, the seven aviation support facilities of the First Army operated under the command and control of five separate army reserve commands. As a result of the reorganization, the seven aviation support facilities now operate under the command and control of the 97th Arcom. Employees were administratively transferred from their local army reserve commands to the 97th Arcom pursuant to the reorganization.

The army reserve commands involved in this petition are the 77th Army Reserve Command (77th Arcom), the 79th Army Reserve Command (79th Arcom), the 94th Army Reserve Command (94th Arcom), the 97th Arcom, and the 98th Division. All of these commands are subordinate to the First Army.

AFGE Local 1900 is the exclusive representative of certain ASF employees of the 94th Arcom. Thirty-three ASF employees who had been employed by the 94th Arcom at the aviation support facility at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, were affected by the reorganization. AFGE Local 2375 is the exclusive representative of certain ASF employees of the 79th Arcom. Thirty-seven ASF employees who had been employed by the 79th Arcom at the aviation support facility at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, were affected by the reorganization. AFGE Local 2739 is the exclusive representative of certain ASF employees of the 77th Arcom. Eighteen ASF employees who had been employed by the 77th Arcom at the aviation support facility at Newburgh, New York, were affected by the reorganization. AFGE Local 3742 is the exclusive representative of certain ASF employees of the 98th Division. Eighteen ASF employees who had been employed by the 98th Division at the aviation support facility at Syracuse, New York, were affected by the reorganization.

NAGE is the exclusive representative of all General Schedule and Wage Technicians employed by the 97th Arcom, including 97 ASF employees who work at aviation support facilities at Fort Meade, Maryland, and Fort Eustis, Virginia.

III. The Regional Director's Decision

The Regional Director concluded that the employees transferred from the 77th Arcom, the 79th Arcom, the 94th Arcom, and the 98th Division accreted to the NAGE unit at the 97th Arcom.

The Regional Director found that pursuant to the reorganization, the 106 affected ASF employees are now employed by the 97th Arcom. The Regional Director found that the conditions of employment of the ASF employees transferred to the 97th Arcom were indistinguishable from other employees of the 97th Arcom since they have been organizationally and operationally integrated. The Regional Director found that as a result of the reorganization, the employees who were administratively transferred to the newly created 31st CAG within the 97th Arcom no longer had a clear and identifiable community of interest with the employees of their former commands. Consequently, he determined that the employees were no longer covered by the collective bargaining agreements with the army reserve commands where they were formerly employed.

The Regional Director concluded that the affected employee's shared a community of interest with the employees of the 97th Arcom. The Regional Director noted that the affected employees are now integrated into the 97th Arcom's operations and are serviced by the same civilian personnel office as other 97th Arcom employees. The Regional Director also noted that the 31st CAG within the 97th Arcom was established to perform a well-defined mission which is not integrated with the commands where the affected ASF employees were formerly employed. He found that the 106 employees perform functions essentially indistinguishable from those 97 ASF employees in the NAGE unit and that all of the ASF employees perform the same type of jobs under comparable conditions of employment.

Although the Regional Director recognized that the transferred employees continued to work in the same locations and under the same immediate supervision as before the reorganization, he found that they were no longer under the command and control of the local commands. The Regional Director found that the affected employee's had been organizationally and operationally integrated with the employees of the established NAGE unit. Therefore, the Regional Director concluded that the affected employees accreted to the NAGE unit at the 97th Arcom.

IV. Application for Review

AFGE contends that under section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, its application should be granted because the Regional Director's decision (1) is clearly erroneous on a substantial factual issue which prejudicially affects AFGE's rights and (2) raises a substantial question of law or policy because it departs from Authority precedent.

AFGE contends that the Regional Director ignored evidence which established that a large number of issues concerning employees at each aviation facility were and continue to be handled locally. AFGE argues that the Regional Director failed to discuss unrebutted evidence that many collective bargaining issues arising at the aviation facilities are unique to a particular job site. AFGE also contends that the Regional Director used an improper standard to determine what constitutes an appropriate unit. AFGE argues that the Regional Director erroneously attempted to determine what would be the best possible unit for the affected employees. AFGE claims that the Regional Director should have decided whether the units as they are currently constituted are appropriate units.

V. Discussion

We conclude that no compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for granting AFGE's application for review. The application expresses mere disagreement with the Regional Director's application of the criteria in section 7112 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. The Regional Director's findings are based on record evidence and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous or to have prejudicially affected the rights of any party. In addition, the Regional Director followed and his decision was based on Authority precedent. See Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Center, Oakland, California, 5 FLRA 775 (1981).

VI. Order

The application for review of the Regional Director's Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Decision and Order on Petition for Clarification of Unit is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,

_______________________
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

---

---

---

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

---