Corpus Christi Army Depot and Machinists Local Lodge 2049 (Authority decision, November 24, 1982)

Final FLRA representation decision. The Authority dismisses an original unit clarification petition without deciding whether any employee belongs in a bargaining unit. An aggrieved person may generally seek review of a final Authority order within 60 days under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a); the exclusion in § 7123(a)(2) concerns orders involving appropriate-unit determinations under § 7112.

Plain-English summary

Corpus Christi Army Depot asked whether union officers and representatives could receive acting supervisory assignments without creating conflicts of interest. The Authority held that a unit clarification petition addresses whether employees belong in an existing bargaining unit, not their eligibility for temporary assignments. It dismissed the original petition without deciding the assignment question.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7111(b)(2).
• Outcome: Unit clarification petition dismissed without a unit determination.
• Key point: The CU petition was the wrong procedure for an assignment-eligibility dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p545 ]

10:0545(93)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 93

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT
Activity/Petitioner

and

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 2049
Labor Organization /1/

Case No. 6-CU-25

DECISION AND ORDER

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, /2/ THE AUTHORITY FINDS: THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 2049 WAS
RECOGNIZED ON AUGUST 10, 1964, AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE FOR A UNIT OF CERTAIN ACTIVITY EMPLOYEES. ESSENTIALLY,
THE ACTIVITY/PETITIONER SEEKS TO DETERMINE HEREIN WHETHER UNION OFFICERS
AND REPRESENTATIVES WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT ARE ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS
ALTERNATE OR ACTING SUPERVISORS; ITS POSITION IS THAT THEY ARE
INELIGIBLE SINCE SUCH ASSIGNMENTS WOULD RESULT IN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION MADE A MOTION
TO DISMISS THE PETITION ALLEGING THAT A PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION OF AN
EXISTING UNIT (DESIGNATED AS A CU PETITION) IS NOT THE PROPER VEHICLE TO
USE TO RESOLVE SUCH AN ISSUE. /3/ THE HEARING OFFICER MADE NO RULING ON
THE MOTION, BUT RATHER REFERRED IT TO THE AUTHORITY.

THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE GRANTED.
A CU PETITION IS THE VEHICLE USED IN SEEKING A DETERMINATION AS TO THE
INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM AN EXISTING BARGAINING
UNIT. /4/ AS THE ISSUE HEREIN PERTAINS ONLY TO EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY FOR
SUPERVISORY ASSIGNMENTS RATHER THAN UNIT PLACEMENT QUESTIONS, THE
AUTHORITY FINDS, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LABOR ORGANIZATION, THAT THE
PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION HEREIN BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
DISMISSED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 24, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ THE NAMES OF BOTH PARTIES APPEAR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.

/2/ NEITHER PARTY FILED A BRIEF.

/3/ WITH REGARD TO ITS MOTION, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION NOTES THAT THE
ACTIVITY'S REFUSAL TO ASSIGN A UNION OFFICIAL TO A SUPERVISORY POSITION
IS THE SUBJECT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE FILED BY IT AGAINST
THE ACTIVITY/PETITIONER (CASE NO. 6-CA-871).

/4/ SEE GENERALLY SECTIONS 2422.1(D) AND 2422.2(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S
RULES AND REGULATIONS.