U.S. Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk, and American Federation of Government Employees, International Association of Machinists, and National Association of Government Employees locals (Authority decision, June 24, 1996)

FLRA representation decision. The Authority grants partial review of bargaining unit rulings and orders further briefing. It does not decide the affected employees' final unit status. An Authority order involving an appropriate-unit determination under 5 U.S.C. § 7112 falls within the judicial review exclusion in 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2); this interim order is not presented as starting a judicial review period.

Plain-English summary

Following a Navy supply center reorganization, a regional director placed transferred employees into existing bargaining units under accretion principles. Two unions sought review, arguing that successorship principles should apply instead. The Authority granted review of that legal question and ordered briefing alongside a related Puget Sound case. It also asked whether planned reorganizations would affect the employees at Yorktown and Charleston. The Authority rejected the unions' separate claims of prejudicial factual error and left final unit placement unresolved.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Representation review under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.17.
• Outcome: Review granted on accretion and successorship issues, denied on factual-error claims; briefs ordered.
• Key point: The Authority sought a consistent method for unit placement when both accretion and successorship principles might apply.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v51 p1414 ]
51:1414(114)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

51 FLRA No. 114

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

FLEET AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

(Activity)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 53, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

and

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS

AND AEROSPACE WORKERS

LOCAL LODGE 97, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R4-1, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1659, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2298, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2510, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

WA-CU-50062

WA-CU-50061

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

FLEET AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER

GOOSE, CREEK, SOUTH CAROLINA

(Activity)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2298, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization/Petitioner)

AT-RO-50027

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

FLEET AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER

COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY

(Activity)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1659, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

BN-RO-50022

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

FLEET AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER

YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA

(Activity)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R4-1, SEIU, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization/Petitioner)

WA-AC-50085

_____

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART

APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

June 24, 1996

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz and Donald S. Wasserman, Members.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on applications for review filed by the National Association of Government Employees/Service Employees International Union, Local R4-1, AFL-CIO (NAGE) and the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2298, AFL-CIO (AFGE Local 2298) under section 2422.17 of the Authority's Regulations.(1) NAGE and AFGE Local 2298 seek review of the Decision and Order of the Regional Director (RD) dismissing their petitions concerning the bargaining unit status of two groups of employees following a reorganization. The Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia (Activity) filed an opposition to each of the applications for review.

The RD found that the employees who are the subject of the petitions in this case accreted to the units sought by the petitions for unit clarification (UC) filed by the Activity. In their applications for review, NAGE and AFGE Local 2298 challenge the RD's use of accretion principles in resolving the issues presented by their petitions. In particular, AFGE Local 2298 maintains that the RD failed to apply current Authority precedent for determining successorship, as set forth in Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, California, 50 FLRA 363 (1995) (Port Hueneme). In addition, the petitioners maintain that the RD made certain factual findings that have prejudicially affected their rights under section 2422.17(c)(4). The petitioners' applications also express concern that the RD's decision in this case could be affected by an October 1, 1996, reorganization of the Naval Systems Sea Command.

In Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound Bremerton, Washington and Bremerton Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO, et al., Case Nos. SF-AC-50070 and SF-CU-50071 (Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound) (decision attached), the RD resolved issues arising out of a reorganization in the Department of the Navy that are similar to those before the RD in this case. In contrast to this case, however, the representation of a group of employees in Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound was resolved by applying the successorship principles enunciated in Port Hueneme. The application for review currently pending before the Authority in Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound cites the RD's decision in this case.

We conclude that compelling reasons exist for granting the applications for review in this case under section 2422.17(c)(1) of our Regulations because of the absence of, or a departure from, Authority precedent. Therefore, we grant the petitioners' applications for review. By separate Order issued today, we are also granting the application for review in Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound. In order to ensure that the issues presented in both this case and Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound can be addressed in a consistent manner and to further clarify the application, in cases involving reorganizations, of the accretion principles set forth in U.S. Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 47 FLRA 502, 610 (1993) and successorship principles set forth in Port Hueneme, we direct the parties in both cases to address the following question:

In a representation case arising from a reorganization where both successorship and accretion principles are claimed to apply to the same employees, how should the Authority resolve the representation issues raised by the petitions?

In addition, both applications in this case raise questions concerning plans for a reorganization that will affect both the Yorktown and Charleston facilities. We note that the Activity has submitted an affidavit attesting that the FISC Detachments will be unaffected by the October 1, 1996, reorganization of the Naval Sea Systems Command. Additional information concerning this or other imminent reorganizations that might affect the employees at issue in this case would be helpful. Accordingly, we also direct the parties in this case to address the following question:

How, if at all, will any imminent reorganizations affect the employees at the Yorktown and Charleston Detachments whose bargaining unit status is at issue in this case, and should any future reorganization be taken into consideration in resolving this case?

In responding to the questions set forth above, the parties may also address the representational status of the employees of the Cheatham Annex, if any aspect of that matter is relevant to the issues before the Authority.

We further find that the petitioners have not demonstrated that the RD's decision on certain factual issues is clearly erroneous or prejudicially affected the rights of any party under section 2422.17(c)(4) of our Regulations. Accordingly, we deny the applications for review with regard to these matters.

In accordance with section 2422.17(g) of the Authority's Regulations, the parties are directed to file briefs, within 30 days of the date of this Order, on the issues set forth above.(2) Briefs should be directed to:

James H. Adams
Acting Director, Case Control Office
Federal
Labor Relations Authority
607 14th Street, NW, Room 415
Washington,
D.C. 20424-0001

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

1. This refers to the Regulations in
   effect when this case was filed. The revised representation regulations that became effective on March 15, 1996, apply only to petitions filed on or after that date.

2. We have on our own motion extended
   the normal 10-day period set forth in section 2422.17(g) of the Regulations during which the parties may file briefs.