National Park Service, Western Regional Office and NFFE Local 1 (Authority decision, November 19, 1982)

FLRA representation decision. The Authority grants review and remands the representation petitions for further action by the regional director. The underlying questions of majority status and unit appropriateness remain unresolved, so this is interlocutory and does not start a judicial-review period. A later final appropriate-unit order would generally be excluded from court of appeals review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2), unless issued in connection with an unfair labor practice proceeding.

Plain-English summary

The National Park Service questioned whether NFFE Local 1 still represented a majority in two San Francisco units and whether reorganizations left those units appropriate. An acting regional director dismissed its petitions for lack of objective evidence. The Authority found that the agency’s evidence gave it a reasonable good-faith doubt on both issues, granted review, and sent the petitions back for further action. It did not decide majority status or the final unit boundaries.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7112(a).
• Outcome: Regional dismissal reversed; petitions remanded for further action.
• Key point: Objective evidence of changes in the units was enough to require further regional proceedings.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p502 ]

10:0502(86)RA

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 86

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1, INDEPENDENT
Labor Organization

and

WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Petitioner

Case Nos. 9-RA-8
9-RA-9

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW

THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW SEEKS A REVERSAL OF THE ACTING
REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S DISMISSAL OF THE REPRESENTATION PETITIONS FILED
HEREIN. IN THE PETITIONS, WHICH WERE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION
2422.1(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE PETITIONER
(ACTIVITY) SOUGHT AN ELECTION TO DETERMINE IF THE INCUMBENT LABOR
ORGANIZATION (UNION) CONTINUES TO REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES
IN THE EXISTING EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND A DETERMINATION AS TO
WHETHER A RECENT REORGANIZATION SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED THE SCOPE AND
CHARACTER OF SUCH UNITS.

SECTION 2422.1(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS STATES
THAN AN ACTIVITY OR AGENCY MAY FILE A PETITION SEEKING TO CLARIFY A
REPRESENTATION MATTER "WHERE (IT) HAS A GOOD FAITH DOUBT, BASED ON
OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS, THAT THE CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED OR CERTIFIED
LABOR ORGANIZATION REPRESENTS A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXISTING UNIT OR THAT, BECAUSE OF A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER
AND SCOPE OF THE UNIT, IT HAS A GOOD FAITH DOUBT THAT SUCH UNIT IS NOW
APPROPRIATE." THUS, THE ISSUES WHICH MUST BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE ARE
WHETHER THE ACTIVITY, BASED ON OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS, HAD A GOOD
FAITH DOUBT WITH REGARD TO EITHER THE UNION'S MAJORITY STATUS OR THE
CURRENT APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNITS.

IN SUPPORT OF ITS PETITIONS, THE ACTIVITY ASSERTS, INTER ALIA, THAT:
(1) THE UNION WAS CERTIFIED FOR TWO UNITS IN 1971, ONE INCLUDING
ESSENTIALLY ALL PROFESSIONALS, AND THE SECOND INCLUDING ALL
NONPROFESSIONALS EMPLOYED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) IN SAN
FRANCISCO; (2) WHILE THE PARTIES THEREAFTER ENTERED INTO A DUES
WITHHOLDING AGREEMENT, ONLY FIVE OF A TOTAL OF OVER 200 EMPLOYEES FROM
BOTH UNITS ARE PRESENTLY ON DUES WITHHOLDING; (3) A REORGANIZATION WAS
EFFECTED ON JUNE 30, 1972, ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATING MORE THAN ONE HALF OF
THE TOTAL EMPLOYEE COMPLEMENT AND, SPECIFICALLY, REDUCING THE
PROFESSIONAL UNIT BY 80 PER CENT; (4) ANOTHER REORGANIZATION WAS
EFFECTED ON FEBRUARY 9, 1981, MERGING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE HERITAGE
CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE WITH THE WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
EMPLOYEES, THEREBY INCREASING THE SIZE OF BOTH UNITS AND CAUSING CHANGES
IN JOB FUNCTIONS AND PHYSICAL LOCATIONS; (5) THE UNION HAS NEVER
NEGOTIATED A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR EITHER UNIT; (6)
NEGOTIATIONS HAVE NEVER TAKEN PLACE CONCERNING THE IMPACT ON THE UNITS
OF CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; (7) THERE ARE NO STEWARDS
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES OF EITHER UNIT AND NO GRIEVANCES HAVE BEEN
FILED; AND (8) NONE OF THE UNION'S OFFICERS ARE EMPLOYED BY THE NPS.

THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BASED ON AN INVESTIGATION, CONCLUDED
THAT "THE PETITIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED WITH ADEQUATE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE
TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DOUBTING THE UNION'S LOSS OF
MAJORITY STATUS AND THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT A RECENT
REORGANIZATION SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED THE SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF THE
UNITS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE UNITS NO LONGER REMAIN APPROPRIATE." AMONG
OTHER THINGS, THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR CONCLUDED THAT WHILE THE 1981
REORGANIZATION AFFECTED THE UNITS, IN HIS VIEW IT "DID NOT MAKE A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF THE UNITS SO AS TO MAKE
THEM NO LONGER APPROPRIATE. . . . " FURTHER, HE CONCLUDED THAT SINCE
THE UNION "HAS SHOWN ACTIVITY, ALTHOUGH OF A LIMITED NATURE, IN
REPRESENTATIONAL MATTERS AND EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO REMAIN ON DUES
WITHHOLDING," THAT THE "OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE
(P)ETITIONER ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE (UNION) NO LONGER
REPRESENTS A MAJORITY OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES."

THE AUTHORITY DISAGREES WITH THE RATIONALE AND RESULT REACHED BY THE
ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR. BASED ON THE RECORD, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES
THAT THE ACTIVITY'S ASSERTIONS SET FORTH ABOVE REASONABLY SUPPORT A GOOD
FAITH DOUBT, BASED ON OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS, BY THE ACTIVITY OF THE
UNION'S CONTINUED MAJORITY STATUS AS WELL AS THE CURRENT APPROPRIATENESS
OF THE UNITS. /1/

ACCORDINGLY, THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED AND THIS MATTER IS
REMANDED TO THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 19, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITS APPEAL, THE ACTIVITY SUBMITTED CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL FACTS PERTAINING TO AN AGENCY REORGANIZATION EFFECTED IN
1972, EVIDENCE WHICH IT DID NOT SUBMIT TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR. THIS
EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN REACHING A DETERMINATION HEREIN, AS
SECTION 2429.5 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDES:

THE AUTHORITY WILL NOT CONSIDER EVIDENCE OFFERED BY A PARTY OR ANY
ISSUE, WHICH WAS NOT

PRESENTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR. . . .

NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE, SHOULD THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR CAUSE A
NOTICE OF HEARING TO BE ISSUED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2422.9 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE HEARING
OFFICER TO INQUIRE FULLY INTO ALL MATTERS IN ISSUE . . . . "