Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2555 (Authority decision, May 8, 1984)

Final FLRA representation decision. The Authority granted a petition finding that the former regional bargaining unit was no longer appropriate under 5 U.S.C. § 7112. Section 7123(a)(2) excludes such an Authority order from the 60-day judicial-review provision in 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

The FAA combined its Pacific-Asia and Western regions into a new Western-Pacific Region. Only six engineers remained in Hawaii within the former Pacific-Asia professional employees' bargaining unit, while roughly 150 similar engineers worked elsewhere in the new region. Management and labor relations functions were centralized in Los Angeles, and the Authority found no separate community of interest for the six Hawaii employees. It granted the FAA's petition and held that the agency no longer had to recognize AFGE Local 2555 for the old unit. The outcome is other because this was an original petition, with no Regional Director decision under review.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Appropriate-unit criteria under 5 U.S.C. § 7112(a)(1).
• Outcome: FAA petition granted; former Pacific-Asia unit found no longer appropriate.
• Key point: The reorganization removed the separate identity needed for the old regional bargaining unit.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v14 p420 ]

14:0420(65)RA

The decision of the Authority follows:

14 FLRA No. 65

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION
Activity/Petitioner

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2555, AFL-CIO
Labor Organization

Case No. 8-RA-20001

DECISION AND ORDER

Upon a petition duly filed with the Federal Labor Relations 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 Authority has reviewed the hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.

Upon the entire record in this case, including the Activity/Petitioner's contentions, the Authority finds: The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2555, AFL-CIO (AFGE) has been the exclusive representative of a unit consisting of all the professional employees of the Airways Facilities Division, Pacific-Asia Region, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), since January 31, 1979. On March 21, 1982, the Pacific-Asia Region, which covered Guam, American Samoa, and the Hawaiian Islands, was abolished and its functions were merged into the Western Region of the FAA, which covered California, Arizona and Nevada. The newly formed Western-Pacific Region, the Activity/Petitioner herein, contends that, as a result of the reorganization effectuated on March 21, 1982, the unit represented by the AFGE no longer retains a separate and unique identity which would entitle its employees to continued exclusive representation pursuant to the requirements set forth in section 7112(a)(1) of the Statute. /1/ AFGE took no position at the hearing concerning the continued appropriateness of its certified unit following the reorganization and did not submit a brief.

The record reveals that, after the reorganization, all the managerial functions for the newly formed Western-Pacific Region, including the responsibility for personnel and labor relations matters, were centralized in Los Angeles, in the offices of the former Western Region. Of the 24 engineers in the Pacific-asia Region stationed in Hawaii prior to the reorganization, only six engineers remained with the Airways Facilities Division in Hawaii thereafter, and they were either reassigned to new positions, new supervisors, or new work locations, as a result of the reorganization. The only organizational component which the six engineers now have in common is the Region-wide Airways Facilities Division, which employs approximately 150 other engineers with similar job classifications. Engineers from Hawaii have been detailed to other locations within the Western-Pacific Region and vice versa. The only working condition which is apparently unique to the engineers represented by AFGE is their geographical location in Hawaii.

In view of the foregoing, the Authority finds that the unit of professional employees in the former Pacific-Asia Region represented by the AFGE is no longer appropriate for exclusive recognition under section 7112(a)(1) of the Statute inasmuch as the six remaining professional employees in that unit do not share a clear and identifiable community of interest separate and distinct from the other 150 professional employees of the Western-Pacific Region. See Mississippi National Guard Mates Shop, Camp Shelby, Mississippi, 12 FLRA No. 117 (1983); Providence Veterans Administration Medical Center, Davis Park, Providence, Rhode Island, 11 FLRA No. 44 (1983); Department of the Navy, Navy Publications and Printing Office, Vallejo, California, 10 FLRA No. 108 (1982). Accordingly, as the unit is no longer appropriate, the Authority finds that the Activity/Petitioner is under no obligation to recognize the AFGE as the exclusive representative of the employees involved. See Department of the Navy, Naval Civilian Personnel Command, Pacific Field Division, 8 FLRA No. 113 (1982).

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 8-RA-20001 challenging the continued appropriateness of a unit of all professional employees in the Airways Facilities Division, Pacific-Asia Region, Federal Aviation Administration, for which the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2555, AFL-CIO, was certified on January 31, 1979, be, and it hereby is, granted. Issued, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1984 Barbara J. mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ Sec. 7112. Determination of appropriate units for labor organization representation

(a)(1) The Authority shall determine the appropriateness of any unit. The Authority shall determine in each case whether, in order to ensure employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed under this chapter, the appropriate unit should be established on an agency, plant, installation, functional, or other basis and shall determine any unit to be an appropriate unit only if the determination will ensure a clear and identifiable community of interest among the employees in the unit and will promote effective dealings with, and efficiency of the operations of, the agency involved.