Department of the Army, Ballistic Missile Defense Advanced Technology Center and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858 (Authority decision, February 6, 1984)

Army Ballistic Missile Defense Center (FLRA 4-CU-20008): Eight project managers included

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
4-CU-20008
Decided
February 6, 1984
Outcome
Mixed result
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1984, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1984
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA representation decision. The Authority clarified the unit to include eight project managers and denied inclusion of eight supervisors. This appropriate-unit determination is excluded from the 60-day judicial-review provision by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 1858 sought to include 16 senior engineers at the Army's Ballistic Missile Defense Advanced Technology Center in its bargaining unit. The Authority found that eight directed subordinates and exercised independent judgment as supervisors, so they remained excluded. It found that the other eight, called project managers, implemented existing policies but did not set agency policy. It added those project managers to the unit and dismissed the petition as to the supervisors. The Authority decided the original petition directly after a hearing, without a regional director's decision to review.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Supervisor and management official definitions under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(10) and (11).
  • Outcome: Eight project managers included; eight supervisors excluded.
  • Key point: Technical project management within existing policy did not itself make an employee a management official.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v14 p3 ]

14:0003(1)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

14 FLRA No. 1

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CENTER
HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1858 (AFFILIATED
WITH AFL-CIO)
Petitioner /1/

Case No. 4-CU-20008

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 1858 (Affiliated with AFL-CIO) (AFGE) was certified as the exclusive representative for a unit of all professional employees of the Ballistic Missile Defense Advanced Technology Center, Huntsville, Alabama. Essentially, the amended petition seeks to clarify the bargaining unit status of 16 GS-15 employees who the Petitioner contends should be included in the unit because they are neither supervisors nor management officials. /2/

Supervisors

The Activity contends that the following employees are supervisors within the meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute, /3/ and should be excluded from the unit: Will Jordan, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Melvin Capps, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Albert Carmichael, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Charles Fendley, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Frank Vann, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Lee Webster, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Donald Schenk, Electronics Engineer, GM-855-15; and Marcus Whitfield, General Engineer, GM-801-15. Of these, the record establishes that Webster and Whitfield assign and direct the work of subordinates; that Schenk, Carmichael and Capps assign and direct work and have effectively recommended the hiring of subordinates; that Jordan and Fendley assign and direct work and have effectively recommended awards and promotions for subordinates; and that Vann assigns and directs work and has effectively recommended the hiring of and awards and promotions for subordinates. The Authority further finds that the above duties are not merely routine or clerical in nature, but require the consistent exercise of independent judgment. Accordingly, the employees listed above are supervisors within the meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute and should continue to be excluded from the unit. /4/

MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS

The Activity contends that the following employees are management officials within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute /5/ and must be excluded from the unit: Lawrence Tubbs, Electronics Engineer, GM-855-15; Benjamen Shratter, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Jerry Cavender, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Larry Havard, General Engineer, GM-801-15; John Hagefstration, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Forney Hoke, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Gilbert Kannapel, General Engineer, GM-801-15; and Lyle McDyson, General Engineer, GM-801-15. In the lead case of Department of the Navy, Automatic Data Processing Selection Office, 7 FLRA 172(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 for 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 above employees, characterized as project managers, are highly trained professionals whose actions assist in implementing, as opposed to shaping, the Activity's policies. Thus, the record establishes that the project managers are responsible for accomplishing the objectives of their projects within the guidelines established by their superiors and Activity policy and providing technical direction to the employees working on the projects. It follows that these employees are not management officials in that they do not exercise duties and responsibilities which require or authorize them to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the Activity within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11). Accordingly, the Authority finds that these employees should be included in the recognized bargaining unit. See National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Headquarters, Administration Division, 12 FLRA No. 37(1983).

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the unit sought to be clarified be, and it hereby is, clarified by including in the unit the following employees: Lawrence Tubbs, Electronics Engineer, GM-855-15; Benjamen Shratter, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Jerry Cavender, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Larry Havard, General Engineer, GM-801-15; John Hagefstration, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Forney Hoke, General Engineer, GM-801-15; Gilbert Kannapel, General Engineer, GM-801-15; and Lyle McDyson, General Engineer, GM-801-15.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with regard to all other employees sought to be included herein, the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., February 6, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ The names of the Activity and the Labor Organization appear as amended at the hearing.

/2/ The unit as originally certified excluded all GS-15 employees.

/3/ 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 . . .

/4/ Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine whether these employees are also management officials within the meaning of the Statute.

/5/ Section 7103(a)(11) defines a "management official" as:

. . . an individual employed by an agency in a position the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency(.)

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace