U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cincinnati Service Office and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 75 (Authority decision, July 13, 1979)

Final FLRA decision under Executive Order 11491. This order decides and dismisses a representation petition under Executive Order 11491. The decision says it applies the Executive Order rather than the later federal labor relations statute and does not address judicial review.

Plain-English summary

NFFE Local 75 sought an election for employees at HUD's Cincinnati Service Office. After the petition was filed, HUD reorganized its Ohio offices and placed Cincinnati under the Columbus Area Office, which held personnel and labor relations authority. The Authority found that a Cincinnati-only unit would fragment bargaining and would not support effective dealings or efficient operations. It dismissed the petition on the unit's merits. The outcome is classified as other because this original petition did not review a Regional Director decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7135(b); Executive Order 11491, § 10(b).
• Outcome: Petition for a separate Cincinnati bargaining unit dismissed on the merits.
• Key point: The reorganized office lacked labor relations independence from the Columbus Area Office.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v01 p748 ]

01:0748(83)RO

The decision of the Authority follows:

1 FLRA No. 83

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
CINCINNATI SERVICE OFFICE
Activity

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 75
Petitioner

Assistant Secretary
Case No. 53-10534(RO)

DECISION AND ORDER

UPON A PETITION DULY FILED UNDER SECTION 6 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491,
AS AMENDED, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE HEARING OFFICER JUDY L. ALLEN.
THE HEARING OFFICER'S RULINGS MADE AT THE HEARING ARE FREE FROM
PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN
NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES AND
REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 7). THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).

UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:

THE PETITIONER, LOCAL 75, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
(NFFE), SEEKS AN ELECTION IN A UNIT COMPOSED OF ALL PROFESSIONAL AND
NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), CINCINNATI SERVICE OFFICE. THE ACTIVITY'S
POSITION IS THAT A REORGANIZATION, SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE
PETITION, RENDERED THE PETITIONED FOR UNIT NOT APPROPRIATE.

SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE INSTANT PETITION, THE AGENCY EFFECTED
A REORGANIZATION WHICH REVAMPED THE FIELD OFFICE STRUCTURE IN THE
CHICAGO REGION OF HUD. PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION, THE CINCINNATI
SERVICE OFFICE, THE UNIT SOUGHT HEREIN, WAS A FULL SERVICE HOUSING
OFFICE, ESSENTIALLY OPERATING AUTONOMOUSLY WITHIN ITS GEOGRAPHIC
JURISDICTION, WITH ITS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND REPORTING DIRECTLY
TO THE CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE. THE OTHER HUD OFFICES IN OHIO, THE
COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE AND THE CLEVELAND FULL SERVICE HOUSING OFFICE, ALSO
REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE BEFORE THE
REORGANIZATION. ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO HISTORY OF BARGAINING AMONG
EMPLOYEES IN THE PETITIONED FOR UNIT, NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AT BOTH
THE COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE AND THE CLEVELAND FULL SERVICE HOUSING OFFICE
ARE REPRESENTED, IN SEPARATE UNITS, BY LOCALS OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (AFGE).

AS A RESULT OF THE REORGANIZATION, THE CINCINNATI SERVICE OFFICE LOST
SOME OF ITS FUNCTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. THE DIRECTOR OF
THE CINCINNATI OFFICE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE AND
BECAME THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING. THE CURRENT SUPERVISOR OF THE
CINCINNATI OFFICE NOW REPORTS TO THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING WHO REPORTS TO
THE AREA MANAGER IN COLUMBUS. THUS, THE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY FORMERLY VESTED IN THE CINCINNATI OFFICE, IS NOW THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AREA MANAGER IN COLUMBUS WHO HAS FINAL AUTHORITY
ON ALL PERSONNEL ACTIONS TO THE GS-12 LEVEL WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION.
WHEREAS THE DAY-TO-DAY FUNCTIONING OF PERSONNEL SERVICES IN CINCINNATI
IS ADMINISTERED BY THE PERSONNEL ASSISTANT IN CINCINNATI, HE, IN TURN,
IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION IN COLUMBUS FOR ALL
ACTIONS TAKEN. FURTHER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING,
IN COLUMBUS, HAS DISCRETION TO ASSIGN OR REASSIGN INDIVIDUALS TO
DIFFERENT POSITIONS WITHIN THE DIVISION, AND, BASED ON TECHNICAL NEEDS
OR WORKLOAD, TO DETAIL OR REASSIGN EMPLOYEES FROM CINCINNATI TO
COLUMBUS. FURTHER, ALTHOUGH EMPLOYEES IN CINCINNATI HAVE SKILLS SIMILAR
TO THOSE OF COLUMBUS EMPLOYEES, GRADE LEVELS OR POTENTIAL GRADE LEVELS
BETWEEN THE CINCINNATI AND COLUMBUS OFFICES ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE
EMPLOYEES IN COLUMBUS HANDLE ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS. THE AREA OF
COMPETITION FOR MOST POSITIONS IN CINCINNATI WOULD BE STATE-WIDE, EXCEPT
THOSE AT THE LOWER GRADES.

BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE PETITIONED FOR
UNIT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION AS IT
DOES NOT SATISFY THE SECTION 10(B) UNIT DETERMINATION CRITERIA NOR MEET
THE OBJECTIVE OF PROMOTING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE BARGAINING UNIT
STRUCTURE. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, IT IS NOTED THAT THE
REORGANIZATION SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
ACTIVITY. THE HUD OHIO FIELD OFFICE STRUCTURE IS NOW SUCH THAT THE
CINCINNATI SERVICE OFFICE IS SUBORDINATE ORGANIZATIONALLY TO THE
COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE. UNDER THE PRESENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, WHICH
VESTS LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT THE AREA OFFICE LEVEL, THE PETITIONED
FOR UNIT WOULD NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY
OPERATIONS; RATHER, IT WOULD LEAD TO FURTHER FRAGMENTATION OF
BARGAINING UNITS. FURTHER, SINCE ALL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND LABOR
RELATIONS POLICY ORIGINATES AT THE AREA OFFICE LEVEL, THE CLAIMED
EMPLOYEES DO NOT SHARE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WHICH IS SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT FROM THE EMPLOYEES IN THE COLUMBUS AREA OFFICE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY WILL ORDER THAT THE PETITION HEREIN BE
DISMISSED. /1/

ORDER

IS IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PETITION IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
NO. 53-10534(RO) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 13, 1979

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

/1/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE INSTANT CASE WAS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
THE DECISION DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE MEANING OR
APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH
WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE
STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.