Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration (Activity) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 640, 1245, 2159, 1759, 1959 and 611 (Intervenors) (Authority decision, May 30, 1980)

FLRA representation decision under Executive Order 11491. The Authority amended its direction of election, and the employees' representative remained undecided. This transferred case was decided under the Executive Order rather than the later Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, as the decision's footnote states.

Plain-English summary

The Department of Energy's Western Area Power Administration asked the Authority to determine a bargaining unit for wage board employees transferred from the Bureau of Reclamation. The Authority found that Western Area was not the successor employer for the old local union units and directed an election in one administration-wide unit, including certain foremen without deciding their supervisory status. This May 30 order corrected a local union number, removed Local 611 from the ballot, and named the five remaining IBEW locals in the ballot choice. The official release also contains the underlying election direction and a June 30 order denying Western Area's request to reconsider the foremen's inclusion. The case began as an original transferred representation petition, so there was no Regional Director decision to affirm or reverse; the election had not yet determined representation.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7135(b); Executive Order 11491.
• Outcome: Election direction amended; reconsideration later denied in the same official release.
• Key point: The five named IBEW locals, rather than Local 611, were to appear in the election choice.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v03 p77 ]

03:0077(12)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

3 FLRA No. 12

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Activity

and

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 640, IBEW; LOCAL
UNION NO. 1245, IBEW; LOCAL UNION NO. 2159,
IBEW; LOCAL UNION NO. 1759, IBEW; LOCAL UNION
NO. 1959, IBEW; LOCAL UNION NO. 611, IBEW
Intervenors

Assistant Secretary
Case No. 61-4217(RA)

ORDER

WHEREVER THE DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION ISSUED IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER REFERS TO "IBEW LOCAL 1749", IT IS HEREBY CHANGED
TO READ "IBEW LOCAL 1759." THE FOLLOWING FOOTNOTE IS ADDED TO PAGE 2 OF
THE DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION AFTER THE WORDS "LOCAL 611": "
/1/ ACCORDINGLY, IBEW LOCAL 611 WILL NOT APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AS
DESCRIBED IN THE DIRECTION OF ELECTION."

THE LAST SENTENCE ON PAGE 6 OF THE DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATES: "THOSE ELIGIBLE SHALL VOTE WHETHER OR NOT THEY DESIRE TO BE
REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION BY INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS OR BY NO UNION." THIS SENTENCE IS
HEREBY CHANGED SO AS TO READ: "THOSE ELIGIBLE SHALL VOTE WHETHER OR NOT
THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION
BY INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNIONS 640,
1245, 2159, 1759 AND 1959, OR BY NO UNION."

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 30, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

CORRECTED COPY ATTACHED

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION

UPON A PETITION DULY FILED UNDER SEC. 6 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
AMENDED, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE HEARING OFFICER, PATRICIA L.
WIGGLESWORTH. 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 SEC. 304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN
NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
IMPLEMENTED BY SEC. 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45
F.R. 3482, JANUARY 17, 1980). THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 7135(B) OF
THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).

UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE BRIEFS FILED BY
THE ACTIVITY AND THE INTERVENORS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION (WAPA)
FILED THE SUBJECT PETITION CONTENDING THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE),
IT HAS A GOOD FAITH DOUBT OF THE CONTINUING APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY
BARGAINING UNIT IN WHICH ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION ASSERTS IT IS THE
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES. WAPA ARGUES THAT THE ONLY
APPROPRIATE UNIT OF RECOGNITION IS AN ACTIVITY-WIDE UNIT OF WAGE BOARD
(WB) EMPLOYEES, EXCLUDING SUPERVISORS. THE PETITION ORIGINALLY
QUESTIONED ALSO THE CONTINUED APPROPRIATENESS OF EXISTING UNITS OF GS
EMPLOYEES, AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
(AFGE) AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES (NFFE)
INTERVENED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR STATUS AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THOSE UNITS. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TO THE OPENING OF THE HEARING
HEREIN, THE WAPA, THE AFGE AND THE NFFE STIPULATED AS TO THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF A SINGLE, ACTIVITY-WIDE UNIT OF ALL GS EMPLOYEES, AND
EXECUTED A CONSENT ELECTION AGREEMENT, AND, ON THIS BASIS, THE AFGE AND
THE NFFE WITHDREW THEIR INTERVENTIONS HEREIN. THE INTERVENORS HEREIN,
THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 640,
LOCAL UNION 1245, LOCAL UNION 2159, LOCAL UNION 1759, LOCAL UNION 1959,
AND LOCAL UNION 611, AFL-CIO (IBEW) CONTEND THAT WAPA IS A STATUTORY
SUCCESSOR OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR) IN FIVE
SEPARATE BARGAINING UNITS AND THAT THE FIVE UNITS CONTINUE TO BE VIABLE
ENTITIES. THE INTERVENORS FURTHER CONTEND THAT THE AFFECTED SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE FIVE BARGAINING UNITS PRIOR TO
1962 SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ANY UNIT THAT MAY BE FOUND APPROPRIATE.

PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1977, THE SUBJECT EMPLOYEES, WITH OTHERS, WERE
EMPLOYED BY USBR, WHOSE MISSION INVOLVED THE PRODUCTION, TRANSMISSION
AND WHOLESALE MARKETING OF ELECTRIC POWER GENERATED AT FEDERAL POWER
PROJECTS THROUGHOUT A 15 STATE AREA IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE COUNTRY.
AT THAT TIME, THE WB EMPLOYEES, WHO NUMBERED APPROXIMATELY 1066
EMPLOYEES, WERE VARIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO SIX USBR ORGANIZATIONAL
SUB-ELEMENTS LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE 15 STATE AREA. THESE EMPLOYEES WERE
REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY IN SIX SEPARATE BARGAINING UNITS WHICH WERE
COEXTENSIVE WITH THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS OF THE
EMPLOYEES, AND REPRESENTED VARIOUSLY BY EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL
INTERVENORS. AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1977, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LEGISLATION
CREATING THE DOE, A SEGMENT OF THESE EMPLOYEES, AND THEIR FUNCTION WERE
TRANSFERRED TO DOE, AND ASSIGNED TO WAPA. APPROXIMATELY 408 OF THE
USBR'S 1066 WB EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE POWER TRANSMISSION AND
MARKETING FUNCTIONS WHO WERE IN THE BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTED BY IBEW
LOCAL UNION 611 RETIRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE REORGANIZATION AND TRANSFER.
AS A CONSEQUENCE, THERE ARE NO CURRENT WAPA EMPLOYEES WHO WERE
PREVIOUSLY IN THE BARGAINING UNIT OF USBR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY LOCAL

611. /1/ OF THE 151 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 640, 102 WERE
     TRANSFERRED TO WAPA; OF THE 350 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 1245, 20
     WERE TRANSFERRED TO WAPA; OF THE 133 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY LOCAL
     2159, 48 WERE TRANSFERRED TO WAPA; OF THE 201 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY
     LOCAL 1759, 74 WERE TRANSFERRED TO WAPA; AND, OF THE 200 EMPLOYEES
     REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 1959, 158 WERE TRANSFERRED TO WAPA.

WAPA, WITH HEADQUARTERS IN GOLDEN, COLORADO, IS UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF AN ADMINISTRATOR, AND SEVERAL ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS.
ORGANIZATIONALLY, WAPA IS SUB-DIVIDED INTO FIVE AREA OFFICES AND SEVEN
DISTRICT OFFICES. THE ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS STAFF ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE OVERALL OPERATION OF WAPA, AND, UNDER GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY DOE,
ESTABLISH OPERATIONAL AND PERSONNEL POLICIES. EACH AREA OFFICE IS
RESPONSIBLE WITHIN ITS GEOGRAPHIC AREA, FOR THE POWER MARKETING
OPERATIONS, INCLUDING PLANNING, CONTRACTING AND NEGOTIATING WITH PUBLIC
UTILITY COMPANIES AND OTHER MAJOR CUSTOMERS. THE DISTRICT OFFICES ARE
RESPONSIBLE, WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF POWER TRANSMISSION LINES AND
EQUIPMENT.

THE RECORD REVEALS THAT ALL PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES
ARE ESTABLISHED AND ADMINISTERED BY WAPA HEADQUARTERS, AND ARE UNIFORMLY
APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES, ACTIVITY-WIDE. SUBSEQUENT TO THE CREATION
OF WAPA AND THE TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL, THE WB EMPLOYEES HAVE REMAINED IN
THE SAME LOCATIONS, PERFORMING THE SAME JOBS UNDER THE SAME IMMEDIATE
SUPERVISION AS THEY HAD UNDER USBR. FURTHER, THE RECORD ESTABLISHES
THAT ALL OF THESE EMPLOYEES HAVE BASICALLY SIMILAR JOB CLASSIFICATIONS,
REQUIRING ESSENTIALLY EQUIVALENT SKILLS, TRAINING AND EDUCATIONS, AND
HAVE, AND ARE, EXPERIENCING A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF INTERCHANGE BETWEEN
ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS TO MEET EMERGENCY AND/OR WORK OVERLOAD SITUATIONS.

THE RECORD REVEALS THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYEES CLASSIFIED AS FOREMAN, I,
II, AND III HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING UNIT PRIOR
TO 1962. AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE WAPA SEEKS TO HAVE THESE EMPLOYEES
EXCLUDED FROM ANY UNIT OR UNITS FOUND APPROPRIATE BY THE AUTHORITY ON
THE BASIS OF THEIR ALLEGED SUPERVISORY STATUS. A PRIMARY REASON THESE
EMPLOYEES WERE HISTORICALLY IN THE RESPECTIVE UNITS WAS THAT THE WAGE
RATES OF THESE EMPLOYEES WERE NEGOTIATED BY THE INTERVENORS AND THE USBR
IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE WAGE RATES OF OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE UNITS.
THE RECORD HEREIN DOES NOT SET FORTH THE DUTIES, AUTHORITY AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF EMPLOYEES IN THE DISPUTED CLASSIFICATION.

CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF THE INTERVENORS, THE AUTHORITY
CONCLUDES THAT THE WAPA IS NOT THE SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER TO THE BARGAINING
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INTERVENORS AND THE USBR, AND IS THEREFORE NOT
OBLIGATED TO CONTINUE TO ACCORD TO THE INDIVIDUAL INTERVENORS THE RIGHTS
OF EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES. IN THIS REGARD, THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT
THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL, IN ITS DECISION IN DEFENSE SUPPLY
AGENCY, DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL OFFICE, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND,
ABERDEEN, MARYLAND, 3 FLRC 789, 802, FLRC NO. 74A-22(1975), ESTABLISHED
THREE CRITERIA WHICH MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT A GAINING
EMPLOYER IS A SUCCESSOR OBLIGATED TO RECOGNIZE AN EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE FOR A PREDECESSOR AGENCY OR ACTIVITY: (1) THE RECOGNIZED
UNIT IS TRANSFERRED SUBSTANTIALLY INTACT TO THE GAINING EMPLOYER; (2)
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT REMAINS UNIMPAIRED IN THE GAINING
EMPLOYER; AND, (3) A QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION IS NOT TIMELY
RAISED AS TO THE STATUS OF THE INCUMBENT LABOR ORGANIZATION. AS NOTED
ABOVE, IN THE SUBJECT CASE THE BARGAINING UNITS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED
SUBSTANTIALLY INTACT FROM USBR TO WAPA; RATHER, THE ORIGINAL UNITS
CONTAINING SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF USBR EMPLOYEES REMAINED AND CONTINUED
TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE USBR. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WAPA IS NOT
THE SUCCESSOR EMPLOYER TO THE BARGAINING UNITS REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY
BY THE INTERVENORS.

WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF UNIT, THE AUTHORITY
CONCLUDES, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WAPA, THAT AN ACTIVITY-WIDE UNIT OF ALL
WB EMPLOYEES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THUS, AS NOTED ABOVE, SUCH A UNIT
WOULD EMBRACE EMPLOYEES WHO SHARE IN A COMMON MISSION, ENJOY COMMON
OVERALL SUPERVISION, ARE EMPLOYED IN SUBSTANTIALLY AND EDUCATION,
EXPERIENCE A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF INTERCHANGE, AND ARE SUBJECT TO
UNIFORM PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES. UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT SUCH UNIT INCLUDES ALL EMPLOYEES
WHO SHARE A CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE ACTIVITY. MOREOVER, SUCH UNIT WILL
PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS. IN THIS
REGARD, THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT SUCH A UNIT IS COEXTENSIVE WITH THE
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE WAPA, EXISTS AT THE LEVEL AT WHICH
PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES ARE ESTABLISHED, AND PREVENTS
FRAGMENTATION OF THE EMPLOYEES, PROMOTING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE
BARGAINING UNIT STRUCTURE WITHIN THE WAPA.

THE RECORD EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION OF THE
SUPERVISORY STATUS OF FOREMAN, I, II, AND III CAN BE BASED. HOWEVER, AS
ALREADY INDICATED, THESE WORKERS WERE INCLUDED AS MEMBERS OF THE
BARGAINING UNITS AT USBR SINCE BEFORE 1962 AND THEIR WAGE RATES WERE
NEGOTIATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE WAGE RATES OF OTHER PERSONNEL IN
THE UNITS. CONGRESSMAN FORD STATED WITH RESPECT TO THE BARGAINING
PRACTICES CONCERNING THESE "TRADE AND CRAFT EMPLOYEES IN UNITS OR
PORTIONS OF UNITS" TRANSFERRED FROM INTERIOR TO DOE THAT: "THIS HAS
PRODUCED SOME OF THE MOST STABLE AND EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN
THE HISTORY OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS" (124 CONG.REC. H8469,
AUG. 11, 1978). TO DISRUPT THE HISTORICAL INCLUSION OF FOREMAN, I, II,
AND III WITH THE NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES IN ANY UNIT ESTABLISHED AT
WAPA THROUGH THE PERIOD OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND BEFORE COULD
FRUSTRATE THE LONG HISTORY OF STABLE AND EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE
INCLUDE FOREMAN, I, II, AND III IN THE UNIT HERE FOUND APPROPRIATE,
WITHOUT PASSING UPON THEIR SUPERVISORY STATUS.

ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THE FOLLOWING TO CONSTITUTE AN
APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED: /2/

ALL WAGE BOARD (WB) EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WESTERN
AREA POWER

ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES CLASSIFIED AS FOREMAN I, FOREMAN
II OR FOREMAN III,

EXCLUDING MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES
ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL

WORK IN OTHER THAN A PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY, AND SUPERVISORS AS
DEFINED IN THE ORDER.

DURING THE PROCEEDING AND IN THE PARTIES' ACCOMPANYING BRIEFS, THE
PARTIES INDICATED SUBSTANTIAL CONCERN AS TO THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF THE
DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY HEREIN ON THE SCOPE OF BARGAINING WHICH THE
WAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES HAD PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED AT USBR. IN THIS REGARD, IT
APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT, PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DOE AND
WAPA, AND DATING BACK TO THE 1950'S THE WAGES OF THESE EMPLOYEES WERE
DETERMINED BY NEGOTIATION ON A PREVAILING WAGE BASIS, THAT IS, BY WAGE
SURVEY OF IDENTICAL CRAFT POSITIONS WITHIN THE AREA OF JURISDICTION OF
THE RESPECTIVE IBEW LOCALS HERE INVOLVED. THIS SCOPE OF BARGAINING
ENABLED USBR TO COMPETE WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY IN ATTRACTING EMPLOYEES
WITH THE HIGH DEGREE OF COMPETENCE REQUIRED FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF THE
AGENCY'S MISSION. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM
ACT OF 1978 SHOWS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS THAT THE WAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES
TRANSFERRED FROM INTERIOR TO DOE SHOULD CONTINUE TO ENJOY THIS BROAD
SCOPE OF BARGAINING AT DOE SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH HAS EXISTED AT
INTERIOR. THUS, THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, IN DISCUSSING SEC. 704 OF
TITLE VII OF THE CSRA (92 STAT. 1218), AS SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED, STATED:

AS REVISED, (SECTION 704) OVERRULES THE DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL . . . RELATING

TO CERTAIN NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES UNDER THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. THIS SECTION ALSO PROVIDES SPECIFIC
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR

THE NEGOTIATION OF WAGES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND
OTHER EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

TRADITIONALLY NEGOTIATED BY THESE EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PREVAILING PRACTICES IN THE

PRIVATE SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY (H. REP. NO. 95-1717, OCT. 5, 1978, AT
159).

SIMILARLY, CONGRESSMAN FORD, IN EXPLAINING HIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF
THE HOUSE BILL WHICH LEAD TO THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 704, STATED:

DURING COMMITTEE MARKUP, I OFFERED AN AMENDMENT . . . WHICH IS
INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE

SCOPE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HERETOFORE ENJOYED BY CERTAIN TRADE
AND CRAFT EMPLOYEES. THIS

INCLUDES CERTAIN TRADE AND CRAFT EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, AND THOSE TRADE

AND CRAFT EMPLOYEES IN UNITS OR PORTIONS OF UNITS, TRANSFERRED,
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1977,

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (124
CONG.REC. H8468, AUG. 11,

1978).

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW THAT THE SUBJECT
EMPLOYEES SHALL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE WAGES AND OTHER
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AT DOE (THROUGH THEIR EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE), ANALOGOUS TO THAT WHICH HAD EXISTED AT USBR AND
REGARDLESS OF THE IDENTITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVE SELECTED BY THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT FOUND APPROPRIATE.

DIRECTION OF ELECTION

AN ELECTION BY SECRET BALLOT SHALL BE CONDUCTED AMONG THE EMPLOYEES
OF THE UNIT FOUND APPROPRIATE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT LATER THAN
60 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. THE APPROPRIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR SHALL
SUPERVISE THE ELECTION, SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS. ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ARE THOSE IN THE UNIT WHO WERE EMPLOYED
DURING THE PAYROLL PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE BELOW,
INCLUDING EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT WORK DURING THAT PERIOD BECAUSE THEY
WERE OUT ILL, OR ON VACATION, OR ON FURLOUGH, INCLUDING THOSE IN
MILITARY SERVICE WHO APPEAR IN PERSON AT THE POLLS. INELIGIBLE TO VOTE
ARE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE QUIT OR WERE DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE SINCE THE
DESIGNATED PAYROLL PERIOD AND HAVE NOT BEEN REHIRED OR REINSTATED BEFORE
THE ELECTION DATE. THOSE ELIGIBLE SHALL VOTE WHETHER OR NOT THEY DESIRE
TO BE REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION BY
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNIONS 640, 1245,
2159, 1759 AND 1959, OR BY NO UNION.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 29, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

ORDER DENYING ACTIVITY'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THE ACTIVITY MOVED THAT THE AUTHORITY RECONSIDER ITS DECISION TO
INCLUDE FOREMAN I, II AND III IN THE BARGAINING UNIT SET FORTH IN ITS
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE INTERVENORS
FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION.

THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
OF THE ACTIVITY'S MOTION, THE INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION THERETO, AND FOR
THE REASONS SET FORTH IN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WESTERN AREA POWER
ADMINISTRATION AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL UNION 640, 1245, 2159, 1759, 1959 AND 611, 3 FLRA 12, A/SLMR NO.
61-4217(RA), (MAY 30, 1980) THE AUTHORITY DENIES ACTIVITY'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION. THE ACTIVITY RAISES NO ARGUMENTS THAT WERE NOT
PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITY. IT IS NOTED FURTHER
THAT THE BALLOTS FOR THE ELECTION IN THE INSTANT CASE WERE MAILED TO
EMPLOYEES OF THE BARGAINING UNIT ON JUNE 10, 1980, AND THESE BALLOTS ARE
TO BE COUNTED ON JULY 7, 1980.

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE NO ADEQUATE REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY THE
ACTIVITY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ACTIVITY'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
IN THIS MATTER BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 30, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

COPIES OF THE ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
IN THE SUBJECT PROCEEDING HAVE THIS DAY BEEN MAILED TO THE PARTIES
BELOW:

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

P. O. BOX 3402

GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401

STEVEN D. BRUMLEY

ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

P. O. BOX 3402

GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401

B. B. BOATMAN

CHIEF, LABOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE

RELATIONS SECTION,

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

P. O. BOX 3402

GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401

ELIHU I. LEIFER, ATTORNEY AT LAW

1125 15TH STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

DONALD P. MACDONALD, ATTORNEY AT LAW

1900 COLORADO STATE BANK BUILDING

1600 BROADWAY

DENVER, COLORADO 80202

GILBERT G. BATEMAN

INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

ELECTRICAL WORKERS

1125 15TH STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

MR. GORDON E. BREWER

REGIONAL DIRECTOR

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

CITY CENTER SQUARE, SUITE 680

1100 MAIN STREET

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64105

/1/ ACCORDINGLY, IBEW LOCAL 611 WILL NOT APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AS
DESCRIBED IN THE DIRECTION OF ELECTION.

/2/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SEC. 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF
1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS 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 AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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.