Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Plant Representative Office-Thiokol, Brigham City, Utah and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2118 (Authority decision, June 25, 1991)

FLRA representation decision. The Authority denies review of the regional director's decision directing a representation election. The election and any resulting certification remain ahead; this order does not decide their outcome. The decision involves an appropriate unit determination under 5 U.S.C. § 7112, which is excluded from the 60 day judicial review provision by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2).

Plain-English summary

NFFE Local 2118 sought an election among employees of the Defense Logistics Agency's plant representative office at Thiokol in Utah. A regional director found that the local group was an appropriate bargaining unit and directed an election. The agency sought Authority review, arguing that its reorganization made the hearing premature and that factual errors undermined the unit finding. The Authority found no prejudice from the hearing schedule or the director's factual errors. It concluded that the employees had local concerns, and that the office's separate work and management structure supported effective bargaining without unduly fragmenting the agency. The Authority denied review, leaving the election direction in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Appropriate bargaining unit determination under 5 U.S.C. § 7112.
• Outcome: Agency's application for review denied; regional director's election direction remains in place.
• Key point: The local office's distinct work and employee concerns supported a separate unit despite agency reorganization.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v41 p316 ]

41:0316(35)RO

The decision of the Authority follows:

41 FLRA No. 35

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT COMMAND

DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

NORTH CENTRAL

DEFENSE PLANT REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE-THIOKOL

BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH

(Activity)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2118

(Petitioner/Labor Organization)

7-RO-00005

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

June 25, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on an application for
review filed by the Activity under section 2422.17(a) of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Activity seeks review
of the Regional Director's Decision and Order directing an
election in a unit of all professional and non-professional
employees of the Defense Plant Representative Office-Thiokol,
Brigham City, Utah. The Petitioner did not file an opposition
to the application for review.

For the following reasons, we deny the application for
review.

II. Background and Regional Director's Decision

The National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2118
(NFFE) filed the original petition in this case on February 12, 1990. The petition was amended on April 12, 1990
and again at the representation hearing on August 28, 1990.
The amended petition seeks an election among employees in the
following bargaining unit at the Activity's Defense Plant
Representative Office-Thiokol (DPRO Thiokol) facility in
Brigham City, Utah:

INCLUDED: All professional and non-professional
employees of the Defense Plant Representative
Office-Thiokol, Brigham City, Utah.

EXCLUDED: All supervisors, management
officials, and employees described in 5 USC
7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).

Regional Director's decision at 1.

DPRO Thiokol serves as the primary
government agency performing contract
administration functions at Morton Thiokol
Incorporated. Specifically, DPRO Thiokol
supports program directors and Government
purchasing agencies in accomplishing their
missions through effective contract management
and evaluates contract management systems and
practices to ensure maximum effectiveness in
attaining an efficient and economical operation.
DPRO Thiokol is a constituent activity of the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which provides
services and supplies used in common by all the
military services.

Since the filing of NFFE's original
petition, there have been two phases of a
reorganization of DLA. In February, 1990, the
Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC) was
created as an entity subordinate to the DLA in
order to centralize the contract administration
functions previously preformed separately by the
Army, Navy, Air Force and the DLA. The DCMC
serves as the primary policy-making structure
for procurement within the Department of
Defense. On June 24, 1990, all former plant
representative offices (PROs) of the services,
including DPRO Thiokol, were absorbed by the
DLA. DPRO Thiokol had been operated by the Air
Force until that date.

When the PROs were absorbed by DLA, the DLA
was restructured into nine contract management
regions (DCMRs). The DCMRs serve as the
regional headquarters for all contract
administration field offices within a geographic
location. The regional headquarters for DPRO
Thiokol became DCMR St. Louis. DCMR St. Louis
also absorbed six other service PROs. In
addition, DCMR St. Louis was regional
headquarters for five Defense Contract
Management Area Offices (DCMAOs) and a DPRO at
Honeywell Corporation.

On August 19, 1990, DLA underwent the second
phase of the reorganization in which the nine
contract management regions were restructured
into five districts. This resulted in the St.
Louis Region and the Chicago Region combining;
DCMR Chicago became the North Central District
headquarters, with primary responsibility for
all contract administration in the field offices
under its control. Also, the North Central
District acquired the DCMAO in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, which, prior to the August 19
reorganization, had been part of DCMR Cleveland.
DCMR Chicago did not absorb any service PROs in
connection with the June 24 reorganization. The
St. Louis Regional Office was redesignated as a
Transition Management Office (TMO), with the
purpose of assisting in the orderly transition
to the district configuration for a period of up
to 1 year. Many of the functions previously
performed by DCMR St. Louis for its subordinate
offices continued to be performed by the TMO.

All employees of the St. Louis Region as it
existed prior to the absorption of the service
PROs, with the exception of those located at
DCMAO Denver, were and continue to be
represented by the American Federation of
Government Employees (AFGE) in a consolidated
nationwide unit. All the employees in the
former Chicago Region and DCMAO Grand Rapids are
also represented by AFGE in its consolidated
unit. The AFGE unit employees are covered by a
master collective bargaining agreement between
DLA and AFGE. In addition, at the time of the
hearing, the former St. Louis and Chicago
Regions were also parties to separate
supplemental agreements covering the AFGE unit
employees in their respective regions. The AFGE
unit employees at DCMAO Grand Rapids were
similarly covered by a supplemental regional
agreement executed by the former Cleveland DCMR.
The only new DPRO that came into the St. Louis
Region that was covered by a collective
bargaining agreement is DPRO McDonnell Douglas,
whose employees are represented by NFFE Local
2099. NFFE Local 2099 and DPRO McDonnell
Douglas are parties to an agreement that was
negotiated while DPRO McDonnell Douglas was
operated by the Navy. All other employees of
the DPROs that were placed in the St. Louis
Region under the June 24 reorganization, with
the exception of DPRO FMC Corporation, which was
previously part of the AFGE Council of Locals,
are unrepresented.

After receiving notice on July 19, 1990,
from the DCMC Commander concerning the August 19
implementation date of the second phase of the
reorganization, the Activity filed a motion to
dismiss the petition as amended on April 12, and
in the alternative, to postpone the hearing in
this case. The Activity argued that because
decisions concerning the transition had not been
made, such as the locus and scope of authority
of the personnel office servicing the proposed
unit, the hearing should be postponed until the
transition was complete. The Regional Director
(RD) denied the Activity's motion. The hearing
in this matter was held on August 28 and 29,
1990.

Before the RD, the Petitioner contended that
the petitioned-for unit was appropriate. In
this regard, it asserted that DPRO Thiokol
employees possess a community of interest
separate and apart from other DLA employees and
that granting the petitioned-for unit would
promote effective dealings and efficiency of
agency operations. Although the Petitioner
acknowledged that a broader bargaining unit may
also be appropriate, it noted that NFFE already
represents other PROs in DLA, including DPRO
McDonnell Douglas, in separate bargaining units.

The Activity opposed the petition, arguing
before the RD that the petitioned-for unit would
increase fragmentation of DLA bargaining units.
The Activity contended that DPRO Thiokol
employees share no community of interest
separate and apart from other offices within the
North Central District and that granting the
petitioned-for unit would fail to promote
effective dealings and efficiency of agency
operations. The Activity noted that the scope
of authority of various functions, such as
personnel and labor relations, were located at
the district level. The Activity asserted that
the bargaining unit should be structured in
accordance with the organizational structure of
the Activity. Accordingly, it took the position
that the only appropriate unit was one
consisting of all residual unrepresented
employees of the North Central District.

The RD found, under all the circumstances,
that the petitioned-for unit of DPRO Thiokol
employees was appropriate under the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the
Statute). In so finding, the RD noted that the
Activity's proposed residual bargaining unit was
not necessarily inappropriate, but that,
contrary to the contentions of the Activity, it
was not the only appropriate unit.

The RD found that the employees of DPRO
Thiokol share a clear and identifiable community
of interest separate and apart from other
employees within the North Central District.
In this regard, the RD found that DPRO Thiokol
is physically isolated from other secondary
level field activities in the North Central
District, and most of its employees are
concentrated at the main plant. Additionally,
the RD found that: (1) working conditions at
DPRO Thiokol were described as modern and
spacious when compared with other DPRO
facilities; (2) DPRO Thiokol employees are the
only employees in the district who perform
contract administration functions for the
booster rockets used in the space shuttle
program administered by NASA; (3) work on the
shuttle booster rockets creates safety hazards
unique to DPRO Thiokol, including close
proximity to concentrations of as much as one
million pounds of rocket propellant; (4)
although the organizational structure of DPRO
Thiokol is similar to other DPROs, the Quality
Assurance staff is larger at DPRO Thiokol due to
the nature of the NASA's shuttle program; (5)
the Quality Engineering Branch at DPRO Thiokol
deals exclusively with the shuttle program and
was created at the specific request of NASA to
perform technical quality assurance functions;
and (6) four sections in the Product
Verification Branch perform strictly shuttle
program quality inspections.

Further, the RD found that: (1) while DPRO
employees within the district are essentially
interchangeable in terms of function, job series
and position descriptions, there have been only
limited reassignments and no promotions since
the June 24 reorganization due to a hiring
freeze; (2) there has not been much interchange
or transfer of employees between DPRO Thiokol
and other offices within the North Central
District; (3) few, if any transfers have taken
place since June 24; and (4) temporary duty
assignments to other DPROs were infrequent. The
RD also found that although annual conferences
are generally held among the various divisions,
there has been little interaction between DPRO
Thiokol employees and their counterparts at the
other secondary level field activities in the
North Central District.

The RD further found that while many
policies concerning conditions of employment of
DPRO Thiokol employees are governed by DLA
regulations common to the entire North Central
District, the local determination of numerous
conditions of employment further establishes the
distinct community of interest of DPRO Thiokol
employees. In this regard, the RD noted, for
example, that vacation and leave schedules are
determined locally by the DPRO Thiokol
management; overtime assignments and the
overtime budget are determined locally;
career-ladder promotions are made locally; and
performance standards are developed locally
without any input from the district level. The
RD found that the policy concerning adverse
weather conditions is also determined strictly
at the DPRO Thiokol level.

Moreover, the RD found that although certain
procedural reviews are conducted at the district
level, hiring recommendations are made locally
at DPRO Thiokol, appraisals are drafted and
reviewed locally, position descriptions are
drafted locally, and performance awards are
initiated at the local level. In addition, the
RD found that more employees perform shift work
at DPRO Thiokol than at other offices within the
North Central District, and that the area of
consideration for RIFs is confined to a 100-mile
radius from the affected office in Brigham City,
Utah.

The RD dismissed the Activity's arguments
that the petitioned-for unit would detract from
effective dealings and efficiency of agency
operations. The RD noted, in this regard, that
the Activity relied principally on the location
of effective control over labor relations and
personnel functions being at the district level,
where all personnel files are kept and where
labor relations expertise and authority remain.
The RD also noted the Activity's reliance on the
importance of maintaining uniform quality
assurance, contract management and personnel
regulations. In this regard, the RD found that
the Activity's concern for uniformity failed to
note that the District administers three sets of
regional supplements to DLA regulations.
Moreover, the RD notes that although labor
relations authority resides at the TMO, the
Activity maintains a labor relations liaison at
DPRO Thiokol. Further, the RD found that while
the DPRO Thiokol Commander lacks authority to
sign a collective bargaining agreement, he does
retain certain authority to negotiate at the
local level over local issues such as the impact
and implementation of local changes in
conditions of employment, adverse weather policy
and parking. The RD concluded that although
DPRO Thiokol receives considerable guidance from
the district level, this does not preclude
effective labor-management relations at the
local level. In this regard, the RD noted that
DLA management has not contested or otherwise
challenged the continued appropriateness of the
bargaining unit at DPRO McDonnell Douglas. The
RD found that "[a]pparently, the District has
successfully delegated bargaining authority to
the secondary field level activity in the case
of DPRO-McDonnell Douglas." RD's decision at
12.

Finally, the RD found that the Activity's
concern for efficiency of agency operations is
undermined by the requirement that the District
is currently responsible for administering five
separate collective bargaining agreements: the
DLA-AFGE master agreement; three supplemental
agreements negotiated at DCMR St. Louis, DCMR
Chicago, and DCMR Cleveland; and the NFFE, Local
2099 contract covering unit employees at DPRO
McDonnell Douglas. Thus, the RD concluded that
a bargaining unit of DPRO Thiokol employees
would promote effective dealings and efficiency
of agency operations. Accordingly, having found
the petitioned-for unit to be appropriate for
the purposes of exclusive recognition, the RD
directed an election in the unit.

III. Application for Review

The Activity maintains that compelling
reasons exist for granting its application for
review on the grounds that (1) the conduct of
the hearing or a ruling made in connection with
the proceeding resulted in prejudicial error;
and (2) the RD's decision on a substantial
factual issue is clearly erroneous and such
error affects the rights of the Government.

The Activity asserts that the RD's denial of
its motion to dismiss or to postpone the hearing
resulted in prejudicial error and forced the
Activity to proceed to hearing only 9 days into
a major reorganizational alignment of the DLA.
The Activity asserts that, at the time of the
hearing, the Activity had not yet had time to
make pertinent decisions regarding the transfer
of authority from the St. Louis Region to the
North Central District. It contends that the
basis for its motion to postpone the hearing was
that many of the variables regarding the
transition from the realignment were unknown at
the time and would affect the evidence to be
adduced at the hearing. Examples of these
variables, it argues, were the location and
scope of authority of the servicing personnel
offices, organizational structure of the
district and the consolidation of bargaining
units. The Activity claims that the denial of
the Activity's motion resulted in the RD relying
on erroneous information, as well as causing the
fact-finder to draw assumptions and conclusions
that were not based on fact or were based upon
the best available information at the time of
the hearing, but that is no longer true. This,
the Activity contends, "resulted in prejudice to
the [Activity] and amounted to prejudicial error
as a result of denying the [Activity's] motion
to postpone the hearing." Application at 4.

In this regard, the Activity notes that the
basis relied upon by the RD for finding that the
employees of DPRO Thiokol share a clear and
identifiable community of interest included the
findings that: there have been only limited
reassignments and no promotions since the June
24 reorganization due to a hiring freeze; there
has not been much interchange or transfer of
employees between DPRO Thiokol and other offices
within the North Central District; few, if any
transfers have taken place since June 24;
temporary duty assignments to other DPROs were
described as infrequent; and there has been
little interaction between DPRO Thiokol
employees and their counterparts at other
secondary level field activities in the
District. It argues that the RD's decision
penalized the Activity by making such findings
when information on these matters could not have
existed only nine days into the District
restructuring. The Activity argues that by
relying on the limited information available due
to the short time since the restructuring, the
RD drew a negative inference that there has been
little interaction between DPRO counterparts.
The Activity also contends that the RD
disregarded or discounted the testimony of
management witnesses regarding contacts between
DPRO Thiokol employees and their regional
counterparts and those witnesses' past
experiences and expectations in this regard.

The Activity also argues that the RD's
refusal to postpone the hearing affected the
RD's findings on effective dealings and
efficiency of agency operations. The RD
reasoned that the Activity's concern for
uniformity was undermined by the fact the
District already administers three regional
supplemental agreements. The Activity contends
that although that was true at the time of the
hearing, 9 days after the realignment, the RD
did not consider the testimony of the management
witness who testified that within a specified
time frame only one supplemental agreement would
exist. In fact, the Activity contends that is
now the case because two of the supplements have
expired and it will be administering only one
supplement. Further, the Activity notes that
the RD relied upon the factor that the Activity
maintains a labor relations liaison at DPRO
Thiokol, but that this personnel management
specialist position has since been abolished.
The Activity asserts that the testimony
established that the status of that position was
uncertain at the time of the hearing. It
contends that by relying on these factors that
were at best unknown at the time of the hearing,
the RD greatly prejudiced the Activity by
proceeding to the hearing.

With regard to its second ground for review,
the Activity contends that the following
findings on which the RD based her conclusion
that the proposed unit would not hinder
efficiency of agency operations are clearly
erroneous and that such error prejudicially
affected its rights: (1) the District already
administers three sets of regional supplements
to DLA regulations; (2) the Activity maintains a
labor relations liaison at DPRO Thiokol; (3) the
District has successfully delegated bargaining
authority to DPRO McDonnell Douglas; and (4) the
District is currently administering five
separate collective bargaining agreements.

As to the RD's finding that the District is
administering three supplemental bargaining
agreements to the AFGE consolidated unit's
master agreement, the Activity contends such a
finding is clearly erroneous because it fails to
consider all of the testimony and evidence
concerning the reorganization and transition to
the district structure. The Activity argues
that this factual finding was a major factor in
the RD's finding on efficiency of agency
operations and thus prejudicially and unfairly
affected the Government. The Activity argues
that the RD failed to consider the testimony of
the management witness explaining that the three
supplemental agreements were inherited on August
19 when fragments of three different AFGE
consolidated units combined into one district
structure. Further, it contends that the RD's
finding is contrary to testimony that two of the
regional supplements would become null and void
180 days after the new master agreement was put
into effect and that the intent was that there
would be one supplemental agreement covering all
AFGE unit employees in the District. In this
regard also, the Activity disputes the RD's
finding that the District is currently
responsible for administering five separate
collective bargaining agreements. First, it
argues that, as noted, the evidence clearly
showed that the District would be negotiating,
and currently is administering, one supplemental
AFGE agreement. Next, the Activity argues that
the AFGE master agreement and the supplement are
one document. Therefore, the Activity contends
that the District administers only two
bargaining agreements, one for the AFGE
consolidated unit of locals and another for the
NFFE local at DPRO McDonnell Douglas. The
finding that the District administers five
agreements, it asserts, is clearly erroneous and
resulted in a prejudicial finding that the
proposed unit would not hinder effective
dealings with the Activity.

The Activity contends that to the extent the
RD found that the District administers three
sets of supplemental agency regulations, her
finding is also clearly erroneous. It argues
that the testimony clearly indicated that one
set of District procedures and policies would
prevail in the future, although those types of
decisions had not yet been made at the time of
the hearing.

As to the RD's finding that the Activity
maintains a labor relations liaison at DPRO
Thiokol, the Activity noted that such a finding
related to the existence of a personnel
specialist who was located as a satellite
employee of the St. Louis personnel office
on-site at the time of the hearing. The
Activity contends that the personnel specialist
testified at the hearing that she did not know
whether her position would remain and that, in
fact, the position has been since abolished
under the district structure. The Activity
argues that the reliance on that erroneous
finding negatively affected the Government.

The Activity also disputes the RD's finding
that DLA management has not contested or
otherwise challenged the continued
appropriateness of the bargaining unit at DPRO
McDonnell Douglas and that apparently the
District has successfully delegated bargaining
authority to the secondary level field activity
in that instance. This statement, the Activity
claims, disregards the testimony of the
management witness concerning the development of
this separate unit's inclusion in the District
structure. The Activity argues that the RD's
assumption that it has delegated bargaining
authority to the local DPRO Commander to
negotiate with the NFFE unit is not supported
anywhere in the record and is basically contrary
to the testimony of the management witness.
According to the Activity, the witness testified
that a DPRO Commander has little negotiating
authority, citing a local weather policy as the
only example of a negotiable matter at the DPRO
level and that almost everything else would be
negotiated at a higher level. The Activity
contends that the witness further testified that
personnel policies and procedures may not be
supplemented beyond the District level. The
Activity asserts, therefore, that the RD's
assumption that there are local negotiations is
simply not based in fact and has unduly
prejudiced it with respect to whether the
proposed unit will promote effective dealings.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

We conclude, for the reasons stated below,
that no compelling reasons exist within the
meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's
Rules and Regulations for granting the
application for review.

A. The Activity Was Not Prejudiced by the
RD's Denial of Its Motion to Postpone

We find that the Activity has failed to show
that the RD's denial of its motion to postpone
the hearing resulted in prejudicial error. As
set forth above, the Activity claimed in its
motion to the RD that certain decisions
regarding the realignment and transition to the
district structure, which were unknown at the
time, would affect the evidence adduced at the
hearing. It pointed to such variables as the
location and scope of authority of the servicing
personnel office, the organizational structure
of the District and the consolidation of
bargaining units. The Activity contends that
because the RD proceeded with the hearing, she
relied upon erroneous information, which caused
her to draw assumptions and conclusions that
were not based on fact or were based upon the
best available information at the time of the
hearing that are no longer true.

In reviewing the record, we find that the
Activity was not prejudiced because of the
transitional nature of its organization at the
time of the hearing. Rather, we find that the
Activity had sufficient knowledge as to the
relevant elements of its organizational
structure at that time to create an adequate
record in that regard. For example, the
Activity was able to place on the record
evidence relating to its implementation plans
and objectives, including the anticipated scope
of authority, district structure and how it
would deal with its established units of
recognition. Except for such details as how it
would merge the various regional regulations
into one set of district regulations, the
Activity clearly knew at the time of the hearing
how the realignment would generally be
implemented, although full implementation was
estimated to take about a year.

Thus, the record established that the
authority of the St. Louis Regional Commander
was transferred to the North Central District
Commander on August 19, and that during an
approximately 1-year transitional period the St.
Louis office would continue, as a TMO, to handle
certain functions, such as personnel management,
for the secondary level field offices that were
formerly under its command, including DPRO
Thiokol. Further, it was clear at the time of
the hearing that the District would be the
primary level of administration, and as such,
that the scope of authority of the District
office would basically be that of the former
region, with operational control over DPRO
Thiokol. The evidence also showed that the
working relationship between DPRO Thiokol and
the District would be similar to what it was
under DCMR St. Louis in terms of organizational
structure and command authority. Transcript at
47-51. Thus, it appears that the organizational
restructuring to the district configuration had
a minimal effect on the command authority with
regard to DPRO Thiokol. Further, the evidence
showed that the DLA and AFGE had arrived at an
understanding as to their bargaining
arrangement. Id. at 101-03, 115-16.

Accordingly, despite the Activity's claim in
its motion to the contrary, we find that the
Activity was able to develop a sufficient
record. In this regard, evidence was
sufficiently adduced regarding the location and
scope of authority of the servicing personnel
office, the organizational structure of the
District and the consolidation of bargaining
units. We find that the RD's decision not to
postpone the hearing did not prejudice the
Activity because, with minor exceptions that we
find not to be significant to the outcome, the
Activity has not argued before us that there are
any changed circumstances at this juncture that
were not described or predicted in the record
reviewed by the RD. Therefore, a postponement
would not have allowed the Activity to garner
additional evidence that would have materially
affected the RD's decision.

The Activity raises questions specifically
about the personnel management specialist
position at DPRO Thiokol and the RD's reliance
on incomplete information regarding employee
reassignments and contacts due to the recent
implementation of its reorganization and the
hiring freeze at the time. With regard to these
matters, we note that the Authority has held
that decisions regarding unit determinations
must reflect the conditions of employment that
existed at the time of the hearing rather than
what may exist in the future unless there are
definite and imminent changes planned by the
agency. See National Association of Government
Employees, Local R-12-35, 8 FLRA 649, 650 n.3
(1982); see also U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Projects Office,
Yuma, Arizona, 37 FLRA 239 (1990) (in cases
involving a determination as to the bargaining
status of an employee who has recently
encumbered a position, Authority will consider
duties not yet performed by that employee only
where the employee has been informed that those
duties will be assigned in the future, the
nature of the job requires such duties and the
employee is not performing the duties at the
time of the hearing solely because of lack of
experience in the job). Although in this case
some facts have changed since the hearing, it
could not have been predicted at the time the
Activity requested the postponement whether or
when those changes would take place.
Accordingly, there was no reason to delay the
employees' rights to be represented merely
because there were potential changes that could
affect the unit. Therefore, we dismiss the
Activity's objections to the RD's findings in
this regard.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the
Activity's assertions that the RD's denial of
its motion to postpone the hearing resulted in
prejudicial error.

B. The Activity's Rights Were Not
Prejudicially Affected by the RD's
Errors on Factual Issues

We find that the Activity was not prejudiced
by any errors on factual issues made by the RD.
In this regard, we agree with the Activity that
the RD's findings that the District would be
administering three regional supplements to DLA
regulations and three regional supplements to
the DLA-AFGE master agreement were contrary to
the evidence produced on the record. The
testimony clearly showed that within a specified
time frame the District was to administer one
set of supplemental regulations and one
supplement to the DLA-AFGE master agreement.
Further, the record does not support the RD's
assumption that the District has delegated
bargaining authority to DPRO McDonnell Douglas.
Although the RD's decisions on these factual
issues were clearly erroneous, we find that such
errors did not prejudicially affect the
Activity's rights. Consequently, we still find,
for the reasons set out below, that the
petitioned-for unit is an appropriate unit for
recognition.

Under section 7112(a)(1) of the Statute, the
Authority must determine in each representation
case whether a proposed unit will ensure a clear
and identifiable community of interest among the
employees in that unit and will promote
effective dealings with, and efficiency of the
operations of, the agency involved.

We specifically adopt the RD's findings and
reasoning that the employees of DPRO Thiokol
share a clear and identifiable community of
interest separate and apart from other employees
within the North Central District. Further, we
find that the petitioned-for unit will promote
effective dealings with the Activity, and will
support the efficiency of the Activity's
operations.

In this latter regard, we conclude that,
despite the errors made in the RD's decision,
the unit found by the RD to be appropriate will
nonetheless promote effective dealings between
the employees and management. The RD found that
the employees in the petitioned-for unit have
concerns that are local in nature. Thus, to a
large degree, the conditions of employment of
DPRO Thiokol employees are tied to the
manufacturer, Morton Thiokol, and to the product
produced at the manufacturer's facilities,
primarily, the booster rockets used in the space
shuttle program administered by NASA.
Consequently, there are certain personnel issues
that are distinct to DPRO Thiokol. These
include: unique safety hazards; a larger than
usual quality assurance staff; a Quality
Engineering Branch that deals exclusively with
the shuttle program that was created at the
specific request of NASA; and a greater number
of employees that perform shift work at DPRO
Thiokol than at other offices in the District.
These issues, in turn, could be translated into
contractual or administrative matters that would
be unique to DPRO Thiokol.

Further, we conclude, based on record
evidence, that the DPRO Thiokol Commander has
the authority to administer the requirements of
the government contract with Thiokol and deal
with the day-to-day operations at the plant
under policy set at DLA and at the district
level. This authority includes dealing with the
various concerns of the employees, such as
safety and health. Although the Commander may
seek the expertise of the Safety and Health
Manager at a higher level, it is the Commander's
responsibility ultimately to deal with the
issue. Transcript at 150-52. Similarly, the
record does not indicate that the Commander is
precluded from effectively administering a
negotiated agreement between the Activity and an
exclusive representative. In this regard, if a
problem arises, the Commander could turn to the
expertise of the labor relations personnel at
the district level as he does with the Safety
and Health Manager when faced with a safety
issue.

In addition, it is established that the
Commander currently has certain authority to
negotiate at the local level over local issues
such as the impact and implementation of local
changes in conditions of employment, adverse
weather policy and parking. Also, as the
Activity must establish an arrangement to deal
with the NFFE, Local 2099 unit at DPRO McDonnell
Douglas, it should also be able to deal
effectively with an exclusive unit at DPRO
Thiokol. Therefore, we adopt the RD's
conclusion that although the DPRO Thiokol
Commander receives considerable guidance from
the district level, this does not preclude
effective labor-management relations at the
local level. Accordingly, we conclude that the
factual errors made by the RD do not affect the
RD's finding that the petitioned-for unit will
promote effective dealings between the parties.

We also conclude that the factual errors
have no substantial bearing on the RD's finding
regarding the efficiency of agency operations.
Thus, taking into account the corrected
findings, we conclude that the petitioned-for
unit would neither cause undue fragmentation nor
hinder the efficiency of the Activity's
operation. In this regard, DPRO Thiokol is a
separate organizational component of the
Activity, a secondary level field activity, with
its own commander, performing contract
administration functions at a separate
manufacturer, which is geographically remote and
which manufactures a product that is different
from any other administered in the District.
The local commander has certain authority within
the organizational component to administer the
day-to-day mission of the organizational
component, including solving problems unique to
the component. Thus, we find that DPRO Thiokol
is not so functionally integrated with the other
organizational components of the District that
the petitioned-for unit would artificially
fragment or cross the Activity's organizational
line structure in a significant manner.

The Activity relies on the errors made by
the RD to argue the importance of maintaining
uniform standards for quality assurance,
contract management and personnel management.
We note, however, that every agency has
centralized control, directives and regulations
in order to maintain uniformity within its
organization. We do not dispute the need for
maintaining a certain level of uniformity within
an organization. If, however, the Authority
were required to find units confined to one
location to be inappropriate whenever the facts
indicate some centralized control of
administrative and personnel matters, we would
find few local units to be appropriate. We do
not believe that section 7112 of the Statute
requires such a result.

Here, as noted, DPRO Thiokol is
organizationally a separate and distinctive
component, unique because it deals with a
specific manufacturer and produces a distinctive
product. In these circumstances, we find that
an exclusive bargaining unit organized along
this same line should lead to efficient agency
operations. Where, as here, the employees share
a community of interest at the local level, and
there are no significant countervailing factors
that require a finding that only a larger unit
is appropriate, a good collective bargaining
relationship at the local level should enhance
the efficiency of the Activity's operations.
Compare Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, New England Region, 20
FLRA 224 (1985), where the Authority found the
petitioned-for unit not to be appropriate, in
significant part because the employees did not
share a clear and identifiable community of
interest separate and distinct from other
employees of the agency, whose mission required
strict nationwide uniformity to ensure safety
within the air transport system.

Accordingly, having found that the Activity
was not prejudiced by any errors on substantial
factual issues made by the RD, or by the RD's
refusal to postpone the hearing, we find that
the petitioned-for unit is an appropriate unit
for recognition.

V. Order

The application for review is denied.

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)