Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3828 (Authority decision, February 10, 1988)

Final FLRA representation decision. The Authority denies review of a regional unit clarification order excluding the associate wardens' secretary as a confidential employee. Section 7123(a)(2) of title 5 excludes Authority orders involving appropriate unit determinations from the ordinary judicial review provision.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 3828 asked whether the associate wardens' secretary at the Bastrop federal prison belonged in its bargaining unit. The regional director excluded her because she worked in a confidential capacity for an associate warden involved in labor relations policy. Her duties included typing and maintaining labor relations files and preparing proposed disciplinary letters. The union argued that those duties were too limited and challenged the regional director's factual findings. The Authority found no compelling reason to review the decision and left her exclusion in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Confidential employee definition under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(13); regional review under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.17(c).
• Outcome: Application for review denied; secretary remained outside the bargaining unit.
• Key point: Access to confidential labor relations and disciplinary work supported the unit exclusion.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v31 p18 ]
31:0018(6)CU
The
decision of the Authority follows:

31 FLRA NO. 6

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
BASTROP, TEXAS

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3828

Union

Case No. 6-CU-70007

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on an application filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 3828 (the Union) under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, seeking review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order Clarifying Unit. The Regional Director found that an employee should be excluded from the bargaining unit because she is a confidential employee within the meaning of section 7103 (a) (13) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute). The Union contends that compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of our Rules and Regulations for granting the application. We find that no compelling reasons exist and we therefore deny the application.

II. Background and Regional Director's Decision

In 1968, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO (AFGE) was certified as the exclusive representative for an agencywide unit of employees of the Bureau of Prisons. The Union is the administrative entity servicing unit members at the Federal Correctional Institution, Bastrop, Texas (the Activity). In May 1987, AFGE filed a petition seeking to clarify the status of Frances Crump, the Associate Wardens' Secretary. The Activity contended that Ms. Crump should be excluded from the unit because she is a confidential employee within the meaning of section 7103(a)(13) of the Statute.

In his Decision and Order, the Regional Director determined that: (1) the Associate Warden of Operations is an individual who formulates or effectuates policies in the field of labor-management relations at the Activity; (2) Ms. Crump is given secretarial assignments by all of the Associate Wardens; (3) at the time she assumed the full-time duties of her position, Ms. Crump was informed by the Associate Warden of Operations that she would be given assignments in the area of labor-management relations and in related confidential matters; (4) the position description of the Associate Wardens' Secretary shows that Ms. Crump has been assigned responsibility for typing and maintaining files on labor-management relations matters, and Ms. Crump has unrestricted access to those files; and (5) Ms. Crump has prepared proposed disciplinary and adverse action letters, types evaluation and investigative reports, and has performed some confidential typing tasks for departmental heads involving discipline of staff members. The Regional Director found that Ms. Crump is a confidential employee within the meaning of section 7103(a)(13) because she works in a confidential capacity to an individual who formulates or effectuates management policies in the field of labor-management relations. Accordingly, the Regional Director excluded her from the bargaining unit.

III. Application for Review

In its application, the Union contends that the following compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for granting the application: (1) a substantial question of law or policy is raised because of the absence of, or a departure from, Authority precedent; and (2) the Regional Director's decision on a substantial factual issue is clearly erroneous so as to prejudicially affect the rights of a party.

Specifically, the Union contends that the Regional Director departed from Authority precedent when he determined that: (1) the Associate Warden of Operations is an employee engaged in labor-management relations; and (2) Ms. Crump acts in a confidential capacity to the Associate Warden of Operations when he is performing labor-management relations duties. The Union further argues that the Warden alone formulates labor-management relations policies at the Activity and that the duties of both the Associate Warden of Operations and Ms. crump in the labor-management relations area are minimal and do not support the Regional Director's findings.

IV. Discussion

On consideration of the Union's application for review, we conclude that no compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Statute for granting the application. Rather, the application in essence expresses mere disagreement with the Regional Director's findings which are based on record evidence and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous or to have prejudicially affected the rights of any party. See, for example, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Leavenworth Kansas and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 85, 28 FLRA 177 (1987).

V. Order

The application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order Clarifying Unit is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY