[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 115 (Monday, June 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32608-32610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15690]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

[FLRA Docket No. WA-RP-60071]


Notice of Opportunity To Submit Amici Curiae Briefs in 
Representation Proceeding Pending Before the Federal Labor Relations 
Authority

AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.


[[Page 32609]]


ACTION: Notice of the opportunity to file briefs as amici curiae in a 
proceeding before the Federal Labor Relations Authority in which the 
Authority is determining the representational status of employees who 
have been geographically relocated from an activity with one bargaining 
unit to an activity with two bargaining units, both of which are 
alleged to include the relocated employees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Labor Relations Authority provides an opportunity 
for all interested persons to file briefs as amici curiae on 
significant issues arising in a case pending before the Authority. The 
Authority is considering the case pursuant to its responsibilities 
under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 
7101-7135 (1994) (the Statute) and its regulations, set forth at 5 CFR 
part 2422 (1997). The issues concern how the Authority should resolve a 
representation case arising from an agency reorganization where two 
different unions claim to represent a group of employees who have been 
geographically relocated from one activity to another and the positions 
they encumber after the relocation are specifically excluded from the 
unit represented by one union and included in the unit represented by 
the other.

DATES: Briefs submitted in response to this notice will be considered 
if received by mail or personal delivery in the Authority's Office of 
Case Control by 5 p.m. on Monday, July 7, 1997. Placing submissions in 
the mail by this deadline will not be sufficient. Extensions of time to 
submit briefs will not be granted.

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver briefs to Edward F. Bachman, Acting 
Director, Case Control Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 607 
14th Street, NW., Suite 415, Washington, D.C. 20424-0001.

FORMAT: All briefs shall be captioned: Defense Logistics Agency, 
Defense Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio, Case No. WA-RP-60071, Amicus 
Brief. Briefs shall also contain separate, numbered headings for each 
issue discussed. An original and four (4) copies of each amicus brief 
must be submitted, with any enclosures, on 8\1/2\x11 inch paper. Briefs 
must include a signed and dated statement of service that complies with 
the Authority's regulations showing service of one copy of the brief on 
all counsel of record or other designated representatives. 5 CFR 
2429.27 (a) and (c). Copies of the Authority's decision granting the 
application for review in this case and a list of the designated 
representatives for the case may be obtained in the Authority's Case 
Control Office at the address set forth below. Copies will be forwarded 
(by mail or by facsimile) to any person who so requests by contacting 
Edward F. Bachman at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward F. Bachman, at the address 
listed above or by telephone: (202) 482-6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 1997, the Authority granted an 
application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in 
Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio, Case 
No. WA-RP-60071 (53 FLRA No. 3 (1997)) (Columbus Supply Center). A 
summary of that case follows.

1. Background

    During the summer of 1996, 970 employees, including 212 employees 
in two job series (GS-1670 equipment specialist and GS-1910 quality 
assurance specialist) (hereinafter ``the two job series'') accepted 
jobs through the Department of Defense (DOD) Priority Placement Program 
(PPP) at the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center, 
Columbus, Ohio (Activity). These employees had previously been located 
at DLA, Defense Supply Center, Dayton, Ohio (Dayton Supply Center), 
where the positions they encumbered had been represented in a portion 
of a nationwide consolidated unit of the American Federation of 
Government Employees, AFL-CIO (hereinafter the AFGE consolidated unit). 
Those positions are excluded from the AFGE consolidated unit at the 
Activity, where 198 employees in the two job series are represented by 
the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers 
Local 7, AFL-CIO (IFPTE). The representational status of the remaining 
employees who were relocated from the Dayton Supply Center is not in 
dispute.
    Separate from the relocation at issue in this case, the Activity 
changed the manner in which the employees in the two job series perform 
their work. Prior to 1994, employees in the two job series at the 
Activity did not work together with employees in other disciplines on 
interdisciplinary teams. In 1994, a reorganization resulted in the 
creation of interdisciplinary teams and, since that time, employees in 
the two job series have worked and been co-located with employees from 
other disciplines.
    In October 1996, AFGE filed the petition in this case, seeking to 
clarify its consolidated unit at the Activity to include all employees 
in the two job series, including the 212 former Dayton Supply Center 
employees and the 198 employees currently represented by IFPTE. 
According to AFGE, the 1994 reorganization eliminated the separate 
community of interest previously shared by employees in that unit and 
resulted in an accretion of those employees into the AFGE consolidated 
unit. AFGE contends that since 1994 only one unit covering these 
employees has existed at the Activity and that, as a result, all 
employees placed in Activity positions after the subsequent 
disestablishment of the Dayton Supply Center are appropriately included 
in that unit.

2. The Regional Director's Decision

    The Regional Director dismissed the petition. The Regional Director 
concluded that the IFPTE bargaining unit is an appropriate unit, 
consistent with section 7112(a) of the Statute. The Regional Director 
found that the former Dayton Supply Center employees in the two job 
series are properly included in the IFPTE unit because they are no 
different from new hires. Citing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Allen Park, Michigan, 43 FLRA 264, 265 
(1991), the Regional Director also concluded that, after the 1994 
reorganization, the employees in the two job series did not accrete to 
the AFGE consolidated unit. Applying the factors for determining 
successorship set forth in U.S. Department of the Navy, Fleet and 
Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, 52 FLRA 950 (1997), the 
Regional Director further concluded that the Activity is not a 
successor employer to Dayton Supply Center and that, therefore, IFPTE 
retained its status as the exclusive representative of the former 
Dayton Supply Center employees in the two job series.

3. The Application for Review

    AFGE filed the application for review, contending that review of 
the Regional Director's decision is warranted, under 5 CFR 2422.31(c), 
because it departs from Authority precedent. Specifically, AFGE 
contends that the Regional Director erred in determining that the IFPTE 
unit remained appropriate after the 1994 reorganization. AFGE also 
contends that the Regional Director's determination that the former 
Dayton Supply Center employees in the two job series are properly 
included in the IFPTE unit is contrary to Authority precedent 
concerning accretion and severance. Finally, AFGE asserts that the 
Regional Director's determination that the Activity is not a successor 
employer to Dayton Supply Center is based on a misapplication of the

[[Page 32610]]

principles concerning successorship set forth in Authority precedent.

4. Questions on Which Briefs Are Solicited

    The Authority granted the application for review under 5 CFR 
2422.31(c). The Authority found that there are genuine issues with 
respect to whether the Regional Director correctly applied principles 
relating to appropriateness of units, successorship and accretion in 
determining the representational status of employees in the two job 
series. In granting the application on these grounds, the Authority 
found that it appears that there is an absence of precedent that 
applies where a union seeks to continue to represent a group of 
employees who have been geographically relocated to an activity and the 
positions they encumber are specifically excluded from the unit at the 
activity represented by that union and included in the description of a 
unit represented by another union.
    The Authority has directed the parties in the case to file briefs 
addressing the following questions, among others:
    1. How, if at all, should successorship and accretion principles be 
applied to determine the representational status of employees who have 
been geographically relocated from a facility with one bargaining unit 
to a facility with two bargaining units, both of which are alleged to 
include the relocated employees?
    a. Does the fact that the positions encumbered by the employees are 
specifically excluded from one of the bargaining units in the gaining 
facility and specifically included in the other bargaining unit affect 
the application of these principles? If so, how?
    b. Does the fact that, before their reassignment, the employees 
were represented in the same consolidated unit that specifically 
excludes their positions at the gaining facility affect the application 
of these principles? If so, how? Do ``severance'' principles apply to 
this situation?
    c. When, if at all, is an election appropriate in such 
circumstances? Is this determination affected by the relative size of 
the employee complements?
    2. Do successorship principles apply where employees are relocated 
under a program such as the DOD Priority Placement Program?
    3. Under what circumstances, if at all, should geographically 
relocated employees be considered comparable to newly hired employees?
    4. Has a party waived its right to raise the effects of a 
reorganization on the appropriateness of a unit if it did not file a 
petition at the time of the reorganization?
    As these matters are likely to be of concern to agencies, labor 
organizations, and other interested persons, the Authority finds it 
appropriate to provide for the filing of amicus briefs addressing these 
issues.

    Dated: June 11, 1997.
Edward F. Bachman,
Acting Director, Case Control Office, Federal Labor Relations 
Authority.
[FR Doc. 97-15690 Filed 6-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P