Army Armament Research and Development Command and AFGE Local 225 (Authority decision, November 18, 1982)

Final FLRA representation decision. The Authority resolves an original petition concerning a bargaining unit under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7111 and 7112. The matter involves an appropriate-unit determination; 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2) excludes such orders from the ordinary 60-day court of appeals review provision.

Plain-English summary

ARRADCOM asked to exclude 17 employees in program analyst, management analyst, and contract specialist positions from its AFGE bargaining unit. The Authority found that the employees assigned or directed work or effectively recommended hiring and awards using independent judgment. It excluded all of the disputed incumbents as statutory supervisors. The Authority decided the original unit petition, with no regional director decision to review.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(10).
• Outcome: Seventeen incumbents in three job classes excluded from the unit.
• Key point: Independent judgment in directing work and recommending personnel actions made these employees supervisors.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p487 ]

10:0487(80)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 80

U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMAND (ARRADCOM)
Activity/Petitioner

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 225, AFL-CIO
Labor Organization

Case No. 2-CU-23

DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT

UPON A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE 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 HEARING OFFICER'S RULINGS MADE AT THE HEARING ARE FREE
FROM PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.

UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS: THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 225, AFL-CIO (AFGE) WAS CERTIFIED ON MAY 1,
1980, AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR A UNIT OF ALL
NONPROFESSIONAL GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES OF ARRADCOM IN DOVER, NEW
JERSEY AND IN TENANT ACTIVITIES SERVICED BY THE ARRADCOM CIVILIAN
PERSONNEL OFFICE. ESSENTIALLY, ARRADCOM SEEKS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE
RECOGNIZED UNIT 17 EMPLOYEES BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THAT THEY ARE
SUPERVISORS. THESE EMPLOYEES ARE, RESPECTIVELY, IN THE JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROGRAM ANALYST (GS-345-13), MANAGEMENT ANALYST
(GS-343-13), AND CONTRACT SPECIALIST (GS-1102-13). /1/

THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THE PROGRAM ANALYST ASSIGNS AND DIRECTS
WORK AND HAS EFFECTIVELY RECOMMENDED THE HIRING OF A SUBORDINATE; THAT
THE MANAGEMENT ANALYST HAS EFFECTIVELY RECOMMENDED THE HIRING OF AND
AWARDS FOR SUBORDINATES; AND THAT THE CONTRACT SPECIALISTS ASSIGN AND
DIRECT WORK AND HAVE EFFECTIVELY RECOMMENDED AWARDS FOR SUBORDINATES.
FURTHER, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE ABOVE DUTIES ARE NOT MERELY
ROUTINE OR CLERICAL IN NATURE, BUT REQUIRE THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THESE INCUMBENTS ARE SUPERVISORS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE, /2/ AND THE
AUTHORITY SHALL ORDER THAT THEY BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED HEREIN BE,
AND IT HEREBY IS, CLARIFIED BY EXCLUDING FROM SAID UNIT THE INCUMBENTS
IN THE FOLLOWING JOB CLASSIFICATIONS: PROGRAM ANALYST (GS-345-13),
MANAGEMENT ANALYST (GS-343-13), AND CONTRACT SPECIALIST (GS-1102-13).

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 18, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ ARRADCOM'S MOTION AT THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS PETITION BY
WITHDRAWING CERTAIN OTHER JOB CLASSIFICATIONS FROM CONSIDERATION HEREIN
IS GRANTED.

/2/ SECTION 7103(A)(10) DEFINES A "SUPERVISOR" AS:

. . . AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY AN AGENCY HAVING AUTHORITY IN THE
INTEREST OF THE AGENCY TO

HIRE, DIRECT, ASSIGN, PROMOTE, REWARD, TRANSFER, FURLOUGH, LAYOFF,
RECALL, SUSPEND,

DISCIPLINE, OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES, TO ADJUST THEIR GRIEVANCES, OR TO
EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND SUCH

ACTION, IF THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY IS NOT MERELY ROUTINE OR
CLERICAL IN NATURE BUT

REQUIRES THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT . . . .