FLRA DECISIONS

60 FLRA No. 93

SELF-DETERMINATION ELECTIONS ... OVERLAPPING APPROPRIATE UNITS

Department of the Navy, Naval District of Washington and Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Fraternal Order of Police, American Federation of Government Employees, et al., WA-RP-04-0024, 0025, 0026, 0036, 0065, December 7, 2004, 60 FLRA No. 93.

Holding

The Authority granted, in part, a union's application for review of a Regional Director's decision in which the RD, though finding appropriate three functional units and an all-inclusive region-wide unit, directed elections only for the functional units. Relying partly on private-sector case law, FLRA ordered self-determination elections "in which employees who could be represented in either the all-inclusive or functional units could choose both their unit configuration and representative[.]"

Summary

As the result of an agency reorganization, 1,425 employees -- 259 firefighters, 328 police officers and security guards, and 838 other, nonprofessional employees (all but 268 other, nonprofessional employees are represented by unions) -- were transferred to the Naval District Washington (NDW). Affected unions took positions designed to preserve or expand the units they already represented. In one of its positions, IAFF argued that a region-wide unit of firefighters would be appropriate. NDW agreed, but AFGE disagreed. The FPO, with NDW agreement and AFGE opposition, claimed a region-wide unit of police officers and guards, would be appropriate. And in one of its positions, AFGE favored an all-inclusive region-wide unit that included all the aforementioned categories of employees. This was opposed by IAM, IAFF, FOP and NDW.

The Regional Director, after finding that the existing units were no longer appropriate as a result of the reorganization, held that region-wide units of (1) firefighters, (2) police officers and guards, and (3) nonprofessional general schedule and wage grade employees excluding police officers, guards, and firefighters were appropriate and that elections would be necessary for these units. He also found appropriate (4) an all-inclusive regional unit that included all the employees. But because the scope of the units was in conflict, he directed elections only for the three functional units which, in his view, would most preserve the existing bargaining unit structure.

AFGE filed an application for review and argued, among other things, that the RD should have ordered an election that would allow employees to cast a vote for each of the four potential units that were found to be appropriate. In support of this position, AFGE cited DLA, 53 FLRA 1114 (1998) and three private-sector cases: NLRB v. Raytheon Co., 918 F.2d 249, 251 (1st Cir. 1990); Globe Machine and Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294 (1937); and Armour and Company, 40 NLRB 1333 (1942). FLRA agreed with this position and found that the RD erred in not also directing an election for the all-inclusive unit.

As a result of the reorganization, the RD found that four completely new units were appropriate.

In such a situation, and as discussed in DLA, an election should be conducted that permits a choice involving all of the units found appropriate. As stated in DLA, "[t]the Authority's practice is to order a self-determination election where more than one bargaining unit is found to be approporiate, and accretion and successorship are not established." DLA, 53 FLRA 1134. Further, "[i]n a self-determination election, the employees are permitted to vote whether they wish to [be] represented by one union in a larger bargaining unit or by another union in a separate unit." Id. The Authority's practice in this regard is consistent with long-standing practice in the private sector . . . . In this case, the RD found that overlapping -- all-inclusive and functional -- units were appropriate. As such, he should have directed an election in which employees who could be represented in either the all-inclusive or functional units could choose both their unit configuration and representative, consistent with the voting process described in DLA. See 53 FLRA at 1135.

FLRA accordingly directed the RD to take action consistent with its decision.

 

Table of Contents