[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35658-35659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16760]


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

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

[FLRA Docket No. WA-RP-80061]


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

AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.

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 subject to reorganizations that modified chains of command at 
managerial levels, but did not otherwise affect the employees' day-to-
day working conditions.

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

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 and its 
regulations. The issue concerns how the Authority should resolve a 
representation case arising from an agency reorganization where 
employees in an installation-wide unit were separated along functional 
lines, and where their chains of command changed, but where their day-
to-day working conditions did not otherwise change.

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 26, 1999. Placing submissions in 
the mail by this deadline will not be sufficient. Extensions of time to 
submit briefs will not be granted.
    Format: All briefs shall be captioned ``U.S. Department of the 
Navy, Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia, Case No. WA-RP-80061.'' 
Briefs must contain separate, numbered topic-headings. Parties must 
submit an original and four copies of each amicus brief, on 8\1/2\ by 
11 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). The designated 
representatives are: George L. Reaves, Jr., Union Representative, 
National Association of Government Employees, 36 Wine Street, Hampton, 
VA 23669; Joseph R. Barco, Agency Representative, U.S. Department of 
the Navy, Human Resources Service Center East, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 
Building 17, Portsmouth, VA 23709-5000; and Gerald M. Cole, Regional 
Director, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 901 Market Street, Suite 
220, San Francisco, CA 94103-1791.

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver briefs to Peter Constantine, Director, Case 
Control Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 607 14th Street, NW, 
Room 415, Washington, DC 20424-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Constantine, Director, Case 
Control Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, (202) 482-6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 25, 1999, the Authority granted an 
application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in 
U.S. Department of the Navy, Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia, 
Case No. WA-RP-80061 (55 FLRA No. 89 (1999)). 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 & 
Supp. III 1997) (the Statute) and its regulations, set forth at 5 CFR 
part 2422. A summary of that case follows.

[[Page 35659]]

A copy of the Authority's complete decision may be obtained by 
telephoning Peter Constantine at the number listed above.

A. Background

    The National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) was 
certified in 1985 as the exclusive representative of a consolidated 
unit of 325 professional and nonprofessional employees of the original 
Weapons Station Yorktown (WSY). Working conditions for the employees 
were set by the commanding officer of WSY, and their competitive area 
for RIF was limited to WSY employees. In 1997 and 1998, the Agency 
underwent reorganizations.
    As a result of the reorganizations, the original WSY's functions 
were split among three separate entities: (1) WSY; (2) the Atlantic 
Ordnance Command (AOC); and (3) the Housing Department and Regional 
Resource Services Office of the U.S. Department of the Navy, Commander, 
Naval Base, Norfolk (COMNAVBASE). Of the bargaining unit employees who 
worked for WSY prior to the reorganizations, 84 employees continue to 
work for WSY, and they have experienced no change in their working 
conditions. The commanding officer of WSY now reports to the commanding 
officer of COMNAVBASE.
    Of the bargaining unit employees who worked for WSY prior to the 
reorganizations, 239 employees have been transferred to AOC. They have 
experienced no change in their working conditions, although they now 
report to the commanding officer of AOC, who reports, in turn, to the 
commanding officer of COMNAVBASE. Their competitive area for RIF is now 
limited to AOC employees.
    Three bargaining unit employees from the original WSY now work for 
the Housing Department of COMNAVBASE, and three other bargaining unit 
employees from the original WSY now work for the Regional Resource 
Services Office of COMNAVBASE. Their working conditions have not 
changed, except that one of the employees now splits his time between 
Yorktown and COMNAVBASE's Norfolk headquarters. The six employees 
report to the commanding officer of COMNAVBASE. Their competitive area 
for RIF includes all COMNAVBASE employees.
    The Agency has conducted simultaneous negotiations with NAGE for 
employees of both WSY and AOC, and has submitted similar, but not 
identical, proposals to the Union to cover employees of both entities.

B. The Regional Director's Decision

    The Regional Director dismissed the Union's petition seeking 
certification of a unit consisting of all of the employees of the 
original WSY. The Regional Director found that WSY, AOC, and COMNAVBASE 
constitute three distinct activities, and as such, the employees are 
now employed by three different entities. Specifically, he found that 
the employees' working conditions are set by three different commanding 
officers, they are in three different competitive areas for RIF, and 
they support three different missions. The Regional Director concluded 
that the employees do not continue to share a community of interest, 
and that, consequently, the unit is not appropriate, within the meaning 
of section 7122(a) of the Statute. The Regional Director also found 
that recognition of the proposed unit would not promote effective 
dealings with the Agency, because the working conditions of the 
employees are established by three separate commanding officers, and 
because two different human resources offices provide personnel 
services to the employees. The Regional Director dismissed the 
petition.

C. The Application for Review

    NAGE filed the application for review, contending that review of 
the Regional Director's decision is warranted, under 5 CFR 2422.31, 
because: There is an absence of relevant Authority precedent; the 
Regional Director failed to apply established precedent; the Regional 
Director committed several clear and prejudicial errors concerning 
substantial factual matters; and established law and policy warrants 
reconsideration.

D. Question on Which Briefs Are Solicited

    The Authority granted the application for review under 5 CFR 
2422.31(c). The Authority found that Authority precedent warrants 
reconsideration because that precedent does not provide sufficient 
guidance in cases where units have been certified on an installation-
wide basis, and where organizational changes affect the chains of 
command but do not otherwise affect day-to-day working conditions of 
bargaining unit employees. In granting the application on these 
grounds, the Authority found that some precedent supports a conclusion 
that changes in chains of command are sufficient to destroy a unit's 
community of interest, while other precedent supports continued 
recognition of the existing unit despite such changes in chains of 
command.
    The Authority directed the parties in the case to file briefs 
addressing the following question: How should the Authority assess the 
effect on bargaining units of reorganizations that modify portions of 
the chains of command at managerial levels, but do not affect the day-
to-day working conditions of bargaining unit employees? As this matter 
is 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 this issue.

    For the Authority.

    Dated: June 28, 1999.
Peter Constantine,
Director of Case Control.
[FR Doc. 99-16760 Filed 6-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P