[Federal Register: August 17, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 158)] [Notices] [Page 44733-44734] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au99-51] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY [FLRA Docket No. AT-RP-80005] Notice of Opportunity To Submit Amicus Curiae Briefs in a Representation Proceeding Before the Federal Labor Relations Authority AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority. ACTION: Notice of the opportunity to file briefs as amici curiae in a proceeding before the Federal Labor Relations Authority in which the Authority is considering the standard to be applied to decide whether an election is necessary to determine representation of separate units of employees, represented by different labor organizations, when a reorganization results in transfer of the employees into one, new organization. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Labor Relations Authority is providing an opportunity for all interested persons to file briefs as amici curiae on a significant issue arising in a case pending before the Authority. The Authority is considering the case pursuant to its responsibilities under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101-7135 (1994 and Supp. III 1997) (the Statute) and its regulations, set forth at 5 CFR part 2422. The issue concerns how the Authority should resolve a representation case arising from an agency reorganization when separate units of employees, represented by different labor organizations, have been transferred into one, new organization. DATES: Briefs submitted in response to this notice will be considered if received by mail or personal delivery in the Authority's Office of Case Control by 5 p.m. on September 16, 1999. Placing submissions in the mail by this deadline will not be sufficient. Extensions of time to submit briefs will not be granted. FORMAT: All briefs shall be captioned ``Department of the Army, U.S. Army Aviation Missile Command (AMCOM), Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, Case Nos. AT-RP-80005 and AT-RP-80007.'' Briefs must contain separate, numbered topic headings corresponding to the three questions at the end of this notice. Parties must submit an original and four copies of each amicus brief, on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper. Briefs must include a signed and dated statement of service that complies with the Authority's regulations showing service of one copy of the brief on all counsel of record or other designated representatives. 5 CFR 2429.27 (a) and (c). The designated representatives are: Steve Fesler, Deputy Director, Membership and Organization Department, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 80 F Street, NW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20001; John M. Paolino, Director of Collective Bargaining, National Federation of Federal Employees, 1016 16th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036; John C. Points, Jr., AMCOM Legal, U. S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898; and Brenda M. Robinson, Regional Director, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Marquis Two Tower, Suite 701, 285 Peachtree Center Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303-1270. ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver briefs to Peter Constantine, Director, Case Control Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 607 14th Street, NW., Room 415, Washington, DC 20424-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Constantine, Director, Case Control Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, (202) 482-6540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 23, 1999, the Authority granted an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order on Clarification of Units in Department of the Army, U.S. Army Aviation Missile Command (AMCOM), Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, Case Nos. AT-RP- 80005 and AT-RP-80007, 55 FLRA No. 108 (July 23, 1999). The Authority also denied AFGE Local 1858's request for a stay of the election, Member Wasserman dissenting on this aspect of the decision. A summary of that case follows. A copy of the Authority's complete decision may be obtained by telephoning Peter Constantine at the number listed above. A. Background American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858, AFL-CIO (AFGE Local 1858), and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 405 (NFFE Local 405) are the exclusive representatives of units of employees at two activities that were disestablished as a result of a reorganization, and were transferred to a newly created entity known as Army Aviation Missile Command (AMCOM), located in Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. AFGE Local 1858 represented separate professional and nonprofessional units, totaling 4,711 employees, at the former U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM), located at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. [[Page 44734]] NFFE Local 405 represented a unit of professional and nonprofessional employees at the former Aviation Troop Command (ATCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, from which 1,384 employees accepted transfer. The issue is whether there is a question concerning representation regarding the former MICOM and ATCOM employees who have been transferred to AMCOM, or whether an election is unnecessary because of the relative number of employees in the respective former units, in which case all employees would be represented by the exclusive representative of the larger former unit. B. The Regional Director's Decision The Regional Director found that AMCOM's mission is a combination of the missions of ATCOM and MICOM. She found that separate units consisting of the former MICOM and ATCOM employees are no longer appropriate. The Regional Director further found that AMCOM is not a successor employer, and that the former ATCOM employees did not accrete to the unit represented by AFGE Local 1858. The Regional Director directed an election among the former MICOM and ATCOM employees to determine whether they preferred to be represented by AFGE Local 1858, NFFE Local 405, or no labor organization. In directing the election, the Regional Director stated that the Authority has not defined when a group of employees represented by one labor organization will be ``sufficiently predominant'' over a number of employees in another unit so as to render unnecessary an election when the two groups are transferred to a new organization. The Regional Director then determined that in the circumstances, where AFGE Local 1858 represented 4,711 employees and NFFE Local 405 represented 1,384 employees, an election is necessary. C. The Application for Review AFGE Local 1858 filed the application for review, contending that review of the regional director's decision is warranted under 5 CFR 2422.31, because, among other things, there is an absence of precedent. D. Questions on Which Briefs Are Solicited The Authority granted the application for review under 5 CFR 2422.31(c). The Authority found that there is an absence of Authority precedent on two matters. First, it has not determined whether, in a situation where the possibility of accretion has not been recognized under Authority precedent because a reorganization has rendered inappropriate separate, preexisting bargaining units represented by different unions, an election is always necessary to certify one of them as exclusive representative in the new, appropriate unit. Second, if the Authority were to develop such doctrine through application of the ``sufficiently predominant'' or some other test, it would be necessary to determine how to assess when one group is ``sufficiently predominant'' to render an election unnecessary. The Authority directed the parties in the case to file briefs addressing the following questions: 1. Should the Authority's ``successorship'' and/or ``accretion'' doctrine be modified to apply to situations where more than one unit of employees represented by different exclusive collective bargaining representatives are transferred to (a) a new entity with a new mission or (b) a new entity with a mission that is a combination of the missions of previously existing organizations? If so, why, and what should the modification be? 2. Is a question concerning representation necessarily raised when more than one group of employees, represented by different labor organizations, are transferred to a newly established organization, and neither our current successorship doctrine nor our current accretion doctrine permits certification without an election? If not, is it consistent with the Statute and appropriate to apply the ``sufficiently predominant'' or some other doctrine to determine whether an election is not required? 3. If Authority doctrine is modified, what guidelines, numerical or otherwise, should the Authority use to determine whether a group represented by one labor organization is sufficiently predominant to render an election unnecessary? As this matter is likely to be of concern to agencies, labor organizations, and other interested persons, the Authority finds it appropriate to provide for the filing of amicus briefs addressing these questions. Dated: August 12, 1999. For the Authority. Peter Constantine, Director of Case Control. [FR Doc. 99-21279 Filed 8-16-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6727-01-P