International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 830, AFL-CIO (Petitioner) and Department of Defense, Department of Navy, U.S. Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, KY (Activity) (Authority decision, August 31, 1981)

Louisville Navy printing staff removed from ordnance unit (FLRA 4-CU-32)

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
4-CU-32
Decided
August 31, 1981
Outcome
Other
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1981, 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 1981
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. This is an appropriate-unit ruling under 5 U.S.C. § 7112. Section 7123(a)(2) excludes such orders from the ordinary 60-day judicial-review provision.

Plain-English summary

A Navy reorganization moved a printing division from the Louisville ordnance station to the Navy Publications and Printing Service, while employees stayed at the same location. The Authority found the transferred staff had a distinct mission, supervision, and community of interest from the ordnance unit. It clarified the bargaining unit to exclude the printing branch employees. This was an original unit petition with no Regional Director decision under review, so the outcome field is other.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7112(a), 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2).
  • Outcome: Printing branch employees excluded from ordnance station unit.
  • Key point: Separate organizational control and mission outweighed the shared location.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v06 p480 ]

06:0480(92)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

6 FLRA No. 92

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
LOCAL 830, AFL-CIO
Petitioner

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
DEPARTMENT OF NAVY
U.S. NAVAL ORDNANCE
STATION, LOUISVILLE,
KENTUCKY
Activity

Case No. 4-CU-32

DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT

UPON A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS 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 AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE HEARING
OFFICER'S RULINGS MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT THEY ARE FREE FROM
PREJUDICIAL ERROR. THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.

UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE BRIEFS OF THE
PARTIES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
LOCAL 830, AFL-CIO (LOCAL 830), WAS RECOGNIZED IN AUGUST 1962 AS THE
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF GRADED AND UNGRADED DIRECT HIRE CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES IN JOB RATINGS AND CLASSIFICATIONS AT THE NAVAL ORDNANCE
STATION, LOUISVILLE (NOSL), EXCEPTING THOSE EMPLOYEES REQUIRING
EXCLUSION UNDER SECTION 11(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED. A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, ORIGINALLY SIGNED IN 1974, CONTINUES IN
EFFECT.

EMPLOYEES OF NOSL PRODUCE AND REPAIR WEAPONS SYSTEMS AND MAINTAIN AND
OPERATE THE ORDNANCE STATION. PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION WHICH
RESULTED IN THE INSTANT PETITION, A PRINTING DIVISION WAS INCLUDED IN
THE NOSL UNIT, WHICH OPERATED UNDER A CHARTER FROM THE NAVY PUBLICATIONS
& PRINTING SERVICE (NPPS) OFFICE. THE DIVISION PRODUCED AND REPRODUCED
PRINTED AND MICROFILMED MATERIAL, AND SERVICED NOSL AS WELL AS OTHER
NAVY DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES. ON OCTOBER 1, 1980 THE CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS ORDERED A WORLDWIDE REORGANIZATION OF VARIOUS NAVY
DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITIES. THIS REORGANIZATION RESULTED IN THE TRANSFER OF THE
PRINTING DIVISION FROM THE CONTROL OF NOSL TO THE NAVY PUBLICATIONS AND
PRINTING SERVICE. ALL OF THE APPROXIMATELY 23 EMPLOYEES OF THE PRINTING
DIVISION WERE TRANSFERRED-IN-PLACE TO THE NPPS ORGANIZATION. THE
DIVISION BECAME THE NAVAL PUBLICATIONS AND PRINTING SERVICE BRANCH
OFFICE, LOUISVILLE (NPPSBO), UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE GREAT LAKES
OFFICE. NPPSBO CONTINUES TO PRODUCE AND REPRODUCE PRINTED AND
MICROFILMED MATERIAL. AN INTRASERVICE SUPPORT AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT
NOSL FURNISH SERVICES SUCH AS MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, AND ADMINISTRATION
TO NPPSBO.

LOCAL 830 CONTENDS THAT DESPITE THE REORGANIZATION, LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS HAVE CONTINUED TO BE BASICALLY THE SAME AS BEFORE, AND WORKING
CONDITIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED. IT NOTES THAT THE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF THE
EMPLOYEES HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED, AND ARGUES THAT THE NOSL UNIT SHOULD
CONTINUE TO INCLUDE THE NPPSBO EMPLOYEES.

THE NOSL CONTENDS THAT NPPSBO SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE NOSL
BARGAINING UNIT BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NPPSBO AS A SEPARATE,
INDEPENDENT GROUP UNDER NPPS AND THE TRANSFER OF THE PRINTING DIVISION
TO THE NPPS ORGANIZATION EFFECTIVELY DESTROYED ANY COMMUNITY OF INTEREST
WHICH PREVIOUSLY EXISTED BETWEEN THESE EMPLOYEES AND NOSL EMPLOYEES.
THE ACTIVITY FURTHER CONTENDS THAT NPPSBO'S CONTINUED INCLUSION IN THE
NOSL UNIT WOULD NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS OR EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY
OPERATIONS, AND WOULD HINDER AN EFFECTIVE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
PROGRAM. /1/

THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT WITH THE CREATION OF NPPSBO, THE ENTIRE
PRINTING DIVISION WAS TRANSFERRED ORGANIZATIONALLY TO NPPS. NPPSBO
REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE NPPS GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS, OFFICE, WHICH IN
TURN REPORTS TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S OFFICE FOR THE NPPS NORTHERN
DIVISION. NOSL REPORTS TO THE NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND. NPPS AND NOSL
HAVE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LINES OF COMMAND AND THE TWO GROUPS ARE
ORGANIZATIONALLY SEPARATE. NO ONE PERSON UNDER THE LEVEL OF NAVAL
MATERIEL COMMAND IS ABLE TO SPEAK FOR, OR NEGOTIATE ON BEHALF OF, BOTH
ORGANIZATIONS. NOSL SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS OR COMMANDERS DO NOT EXERCISE
BUDGETARY, PERSONNEL OR OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY OVER ANY NPPSBO EMPLOYEES.
NOSL AND NPPSBO EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE COMMON SUPERVISION, ALTHOUGH
LOWER LEVEL SUPERVISORS OF NPPSBO EMPLOYEES WERE ALSO TRANSFERRED TO
NPPS, AND CONTINUE TO SUPERVISE THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION.

PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION NOSL ORDERS MADE UP APPROXIMATELY 70% OF
THE WORKLOAD OF THE PRINTING DIVISION. SINCE THE REORGANIZATION NPPSBO
HAS ADDED MORE EQUIPMENT, SERVES MORE CUSTOMERS THAN IT PREVIOUSLY DID,
AND EXPECTS TO ADD STILL MORE CUSTOMERS. AT PRESENT NOSL ORDERS STILL
MAKE UP ABOUT 70% OF THE WORKLOAD OF NPPSBO, BUT NOSL IS NOW REQUIRED TO
FOLLOW ALL FORMAL PROCEDURES WHEN ASKING FOR SERVICES, AND IS ACCORDED
NO PRIORITY.

NPPSBO REMAINS AT THE SAME LOCATION AS PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION;
AS BEFORE, THE WORK OF THE NPPSBO EMPLOYEES IS PERFORMED VIRTUALLY IN
ISOLATION FROM THE NOSL EMPLOYEES. THE TWO GROUPS ALWAYS WERE
PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND PERFORMED DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORK; NOW THEY
ARE ORGANIZATIONALLY SEPARATE AS WELL. WHILE THEY CAN STILL CONTINUE TO
SHARE CAR POOLS, CAFETERIAS, PARKING, AND VARIOUS STATION-WIDE
FACILITIES, THERE ARE NO INTEGRATED WORK PROCESSES, OR ON-THE-JOB
INTERMINGLING, AND NO NPPSBO FUNCTIONS ARE CARRIED OUT IN CONJUNCTION
WITH NOSL EMPLOYEES. UNLESS THERE IS AN EMERGENCY, NPPSBO EMPLOYEES
WORK ONLY THE DAY SHIFT UNLIKE NOSL EMPLOYEES WHO MORE OFTEN WORK
OVERTIME AND ROTATING SHIFTS. NPPSBO EMPLOYEES HAVE THEIR OWN TIME
CLOCK AND IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM, AND ARE OBLIGED TO FOLLOW SOMEWHAT
STRICTER PROCEDURES THAN THOSE APPLIED TO NOSL EMPLOYEES.

NO ROUTINE INTERCHANGE OF EMPLOYEES THROUGH DETAILS OR REASSIGNMENTS
EXISTS BETWEEN NOSL AND NPPSBO. BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF
THE TWO GROUPS, EMPLOYEES DO NOT ROUTINELY ACQUIRE THE SAME SKILLS OR
SHARE COMMON CAREER OBJECTIVES. THE DIRECTOR OF NPPSBO, WHO HAS BEEN
WITH THE GROUP FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, TESTIFIED THAT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE NO
INDIVIDUALS IN THE VARIOUS CRAFT OCCUPATIONS OF EITHER NOSL OR NPPSBO
(OR THE PRINTING DIVISION PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION) EVER TRANSFERRED
TO THE OTHER GROUP. NPPSBO ADMINISTERS ITS OWN PAYROLL AND SETS UP ITS
OWN PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AS DICTATED BY NPPS. NOSL, THROUGH
THE SUPPORT AGREEMENT, PROVIDES NPPSBO WITH VARIOUS SUPPORT SERVICES
INCLUDING USE OF THE NOSL PERSONNEL OFFICE, BUT ALL HIRING, PROMOTIONS,
AND OTHER PERSONNEL AUTHORITY IS RETAINED BY THE NPPSBO DIRECTOR.
COMPETITIVE AREAS FOR REDUCTIONS-IN-FORCE AND MERIT PROMOTION ARE
DIFFERENT FOR THE TWO GROUPS, ALTHOUGH PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION, BOTH
GROUPS COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TOGETHER AS BOTH WERE PART OF THE SAME
ACTIVITY. PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF NOSL
WAS ABLE TO VETO ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PRINTING DIVISION; NOW HE HAS
NO AUTHORITY OVER ANY OF NPPSBO'S POLICIES. ANY COSTS INCURRED BY NOSL
AS A RESULT OF THE SERVICING AGREEMENT ARE, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS,
REIMBURSABLE BY NPPSBO WHICH CONTROLS IT OWN BUDGET.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF
NPPSBO NO LONGER SHARE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WITH THE NOSL EMPLOYEES
IN THE EXISTING UNIT REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 830. AS A RESULT OF THE
REORGANIZATION THE NPPSBO EMPLOYEES ARE NOW PART OF A NEW AND EXPANDED
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMAND WITH THE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT MISSION OF
SUPPLYING PHOTOGRAPHIC AND REPRODUCTION SERVICES, AND ARE NO LONGER PART
OF NOSL. NPPSBO EMPLOYEES ARE NOW UNDER SEPARATE SUPERVISION AND
COMMAND INSTEAD OF BEING ANSWERABLE TO THE NOSL COMMAND. THE EMPLOYEES
OF NPPSBO CONTINUE TO SHARE PLANT-WIDE FACILITIES SUCH AS CAFETERIAS BUT
THEIR WORK AREAS REMAIN SEPARATE FROM NOSL EMPLOYEES, AND THEIR
FUNCTIONS ARE EVEN MORE ISOLATED. NOSL, THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE SUPPORT
AGREEMENT, PROVIDES PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAINTENANCE
SERVICES TO NPPSBO, BUT THE PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND WORKING
CONDITIONS ARE CONTROLLED BY THE DIRECTOR OF NPPSBO AS SET FORTH BY
NPPS. THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF NOSL NOW HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE
ACTIONS OF NPPSBO EMPLOYEES, WHEREAS BEFORE THE REORGANIZATION HE HAD
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OVER THOSE EMPLOYEES. THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF
NOSL, WHO PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION WAS ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE
UNION ON MATTERS AFFECTING ALL THE EMPLOYEES, NOW HAS NO AUTHORITY TO
SPEAK FOR THE NPPSBO MANAGEMENT OR NEGOTIATE ON MATTERS AFFECTING NPPSBO
EMPLOYEES. CONSEQUENTLY, TO INCLUDE BOTH NPPSBO AND NOSL EMPLOYEES IN
THE SAME UNIT WOULD NOT FOSTER EFFECTIVE DEALINGS OR EFFICIENCY OF
OPERATIONS.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE NPPSBO
EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTE A FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT GROUP OF EMPLOYEES WHO
SHARE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE EMPLOYEES
IN THE EXISTING UNIT, AND THAT THEIR CONTINUED INCLUSION IN THE EXISTING
UNIT WOULD NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS OR EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY
OPERATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY SHALL ORDER THAT THE
CERTIFICATION FOR THE NOSL BARGAINING UNIT BE CLARIFIED TO EXCLUDE THE
NPPSBO EMPLOYEES. SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVY REGIONAL DATA
AUTOMATION CENTER, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, ET. AL., 4 FLRA NO. 18(1980).

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED, IN WHICH
EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WAS GRANTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL 830, IN 1962, AT THE NAVAL
ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, CLARIFIED
BY EXCLUDING FROM SAID UNIT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE NAVY PUBLICATIONS AND
PRINTING SERVICE BRANCH OFFICE, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 31, 1981

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------

/1/ SECTION 7112(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES:

(A)(1) THE AUTHORITY SHALL DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY UNIT.
THE AUTHORITY SHALL

DETERMINE IN EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ORDER TO ENSURE EMPLOYEES THE
FULLEST FREEDOM IN EXERCISING

THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, THE APPROPRIATE UNIT SHOULD
BE ESTABLISHED ON AN

AGENCY, PLANT, INSTALLATION, FUNCTIONAL, OR OTHER BASIS AND SHALL
DETERMINE ANY UNIT TO BE AN

APPROPRIATE UNIT ONLY IF THE DETERMINATION WILL ENSURE A CLEAR AND
IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF

INTEREST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT AND WILL PROMOTE EFFECTIVE
DEALINGS WITH, AND

EFFICIENCY OF THE OPERATIONS OF, THE AGENCY INVOLVED.

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