Defense Communications Agency, Headquarters, Arlington, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2, AFL-CIO (Authority decision, August 5, 1982)

Final FLRA representation decision. The Authority further clarified the bargaining unit in this decision. This appropriate-unit determination is excluded from the 60-day judicial-review provision by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2).

Plain-English summary

The Defense Communications Agency sought reconsideration of an earlier unit clarification that had confused two groups of employees at its operations center. The Authority granted reconsideration and reviewed the roles of 15 computer specialists and four computer systems analysts. It found that the specialists were not supervisors because senior officials had final approval of work assignments. It found that the analysts were not management officials because their technical work and suggestions did not formulate or determine agency policy. The Authority further clarified the bargaining unit to include both groups.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7103(a)(10), 7103(a)(11), and 7112.
• Outcome: Reconsideration granted; the unit clarification was expanded to include computer specialists and computer systems analysts.
• Key point: Team leadership and technical recommendations did not make these employees supervisors or management officials under the statute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v08 p764 ]

08:0764(128)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

8 FLRA No. 128

DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS
AGENCY, HEADQUARTERS, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Agency/Petitioner

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO
Labor Organization

Case No. 3-CU-50

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY,
HEADQUARTERS, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 8 FLRA NO. 128(1982), FILED BY THE
AGENCY/PETITIONER.

ON MAY 26, 1982, THE AUTHORITY ISSUED ITS DECISION AND ORDER
CLARIFYING UNIT IN THE ABOVE CASE. AMONG OTHER FINDINGS, IT FOUND,
UNDER THE HEADING COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM, DCA OPERATIONS CENTER (DCAOC), GS-334-13, THAT "FOUR COMPUTER
SYSTEMS ANALYSTS" ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION POINTS OUT THAT THERE ARE IN FACT
FIFTEEN COMPUTER SPECIALISTS IN DCAOC, WHOM THE AUTHORITY APPEARS TO
ADDRESS, AND ASKS US TO RECONSIDER OUR CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO THEIR
SUPERVISORY STATUS. THE MOTION ALSO POINTS OUT THAT THERE ARE IN FACT
FOUR COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYSTS IN DCAOC, BUT THAT THE AGENCY/PETITIONER
HAD ALLEGED THAT THEY ARE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, NOT SUPERVISORS. HENCE,
IT ASKS THE AUTHORITY TO ALSO PASS UPON THIS ALLEGATION. THE AUTHORITY
SHALL HERE DETERMINE THE STATUS OF BOTH THOSE CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES.
THUS, THE AUTHORITY GRANTS THE MOTION OF THE AGENCY/PETITIONER AND
ISSUES THIS SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION.

COMPUTER SPECIALIST, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, DCA

OPERATIONS CENTER (DCAOC), GS-334-13

THERE ARE FIFTEEN COMPUTER SPECIALISTS WHO SERVE AS TEAM LEADERS IN
THE ADP AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (NCS). THE AGENCY/PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT THESE
EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT AS SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE. THE SUPERVISORY STATUS
OF THESE TEAM LEADERS WAS INCORRECTLY CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER
THE HEADING COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST (SEE BELOW).

AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT IN THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY
FINDS THAT ITS STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT TEAM LEADERS' ESTIMATES "ARE
APPROVED BY EITHER THE BRANCH CHIEF OR DIVISION DIRECTOR, WHO CHOOSES
WHICH EMPLOYEES WILL CARRY OUT THE WORK," IS A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION OF
THE TESTIMONY. WHILE TEAM LEADERS MAKE SOME DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD,
ESPECIALLY IN CASES OF URGENCY, IT IS NONETHELESS TRUE THAT, AS PART OF
THEIR ESTIMATES AS TO HOW A TEAM ASSIGNMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED,
INCLUDING ASSIGNMENT OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONNEL, FINAL APPROVAL COMES FROM
THE BRANCH CHIEF OR THE DIVISION DIRECTOR. THE AUTHORITY RECONFIRMS THE
PREVIOUS FINDINGS AS TO THESE INDIVIDUALS.

UPON RECONSIDERATION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE ABOVE TEAM LEADERS
ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE
STATUTE AND THEY MUST THEREFORE BE INCLUDED IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.

COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM,

DCA OPERATIONS CENTER (DCAOC), GS-334-13

THERE ARE FOUR COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYSTS IN DCAOC, WHO THE
AGENCY/PETITIONER ALLEGES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT AS MANAGEMENT
OFFICIALS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(11) OF THE STATUTE AND
WHOSE STATUS THE AUTHORITY HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY PASSED UPON. IN THE LEAD
CASE OF DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING SELECTION
OFFICE, 7 FLRA NO. 24(1981), THE AUTHORITY INTERPRETED THE STATUTORY
DEFINITION OF "MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL" TO INCLUDE THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO:
(1) CREATE, ESTABLISH OR PRESCRIBE GENERAL PRINCIPLES, PLANS, OR COURSES
OF ACTION OF AN AGENCY; (2) DECIDE UPON OR SETTLE UPON GENERAL
PRINCIPLES, PLANS OR COURSES OF ACTION FOR AN AGENCY; OR (3) BRING
ABOUT OR OBTAIN A RESULT AS TO THE ADOPTION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES, PLANS
OR COURSES OF ACTION FOR AN AGENCY. APPLYING THESE CRITERIA TO THE
INSTANT CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE WORK OF ALL FOUR INCUMBENTS
IS RELATED AND INVOLVES THE DEVELOPING, ANALYZING AND MAINTAINING OF
BOTH HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS SUCH AS DATA BASE CIRCULAR SYSTEMS,
CONFIGURATION CONTROL, INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE BY CONTRACTS OFFICERS WHO
PURCHASE EQUIPMENT, SITE PREPARATION FOR INCOMING EQUIPMENT AND LONG
RANGE COST ANALYSIS OF SUCH SYSTEMS. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT WORK
PERFORMED BY THESE ANALYSTS AFFECTS THE WORK OF MANAGEMENT, THE WORK
PRODUCT OF THE INCUMBENTS AND THEIR SUGGESTIONS ARE NO MORE THAN A
STARTING POINT FOR THOSE MAKING FINAL DECISIONS. THE AUTHORITY FINDS
THAT THE INCUMBENTS IN THESE POSITIONS ARE NOT MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, AS
THEY DO NOT FORMULATE, DETERMINE OR INFLUENCE THE POLICIES OF THE AGENCY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(11) OF THE STATUTE, AND THEY MUST
THEREFORE BE INCLUDED IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.

ORDER

ACCORDINGLY, THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS HEREBY GRANTED, AND,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED HEREIN, FOR
WHICH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO,
WAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND WHICH THE
AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE CLARIFIED ON MAY 26, 1982, BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
FURTHER CLARIFIED TO INCLUDE THE POSITIONS OF COMPUTER SPECIALIST AND
COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, DCA OPERATIONS
CENTER (DCAOC), GS-334-13.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 5, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY