OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
LA 200, John Adams Building, 110 Second
Street, S. E.
Washington, D. C. 20540-1999
__________________________
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NOS. 246 AND 639, AFL-CIO
Petitioner,
Case No. 03-LM(AC)-02
and Date: January 14, 2004
OFFICE OF THE U.S. CAPITOL
POLICE BOARD,
Employing Office
__________________________
Before the Board of Directors: Susan S. Robfogel,
Chair. Alan V. Friedman; Roberta L. Holzwarth; Barbara Childs Wallace,
Members. 1
DECISION
AND ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
I. INTRODUCTION
The Petitioner labor organization seeks to amend
the April 11, 2000 collective bargaining agent certification2 to
substitute Teamsters Local 639 for Teamsters Local 246 as the certified
exclusive bargaining representative. The Petitioner asserts that
as a consequence of a special membership election Local 246 merged
into Local 639 in January 2003.
II. PARTIES’ POSITIONS
Petitioner submits that the merger election
complied with guiding case law precedent, afforded due process,
and provided full continuity of representation by the merged Teamsters
Local 639 retaining the same constitution, dues structure, and servicing
union business agents that this bargaining unit previously enjoyed
through Teamsters Local 246. Petitioner states that because Teamsters
Local 246 was under International trusteeship at the time of the
merger election, the Local’s membership would not lose their
elective officers because there were none
The Employing Office does not oppose the amendment
of certification petition and has asked the Board to determine whether
it complies with controlling law.
III. DISCUSSION
The Federal Labor Relations Authority (“Authority”),
in also applying Title V, U.S.C. Chapter 71 of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute, has well settled case law in
the area of amendment to certification petitions involving labor
organization affiliations or mergers. In either situation, two conditions
must be met: due process and continuity of representation. These
two conditions were first described by the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Labor Management Relations, under the Executive Order
11491 Program, in Veterans Administration Hospital, Montrose, New
York (“Montrose”), 4 A/SLMR 858 (1974). The Authority
specifically adopted Montrose in Florida National Guard,
St. Augustine, Florida, 25 FLRA 728 (1987). 3
Montrose sets out specific procedures
to ensure that union members have an adequate opportunity to vote
on mergers or changes in affiliation. These due process standards
encompass adequate advance notice, special and convenient meetings
for fair discussion of the proposed change, and a secret ballot
vote among the union bargaining unit members clearly stating the
proposed change and the choices inherent therein.
Any change in affiliation may not affect the
continuity of the union employees’ representation and nor
may it leave open questions concerning such representation. The
Authority has identified elements to weigh, including: continuity
of officers or representatives; local autonomy and control of day-to-day
operations, and whether the gaining union has agreed to administer
the existing contract. U.S. Department of the Army, Rock Island
Arsenal, Rock Island Illinois (“Rock Island”),
46 FLRA 76 (1992) citing NLRB v. Financial Institution of Employees
of America, Local 1183, 475 U.S. 192 (1986).
According to the Authority, any petitions that
seek to amend a recognition or certification as a result of a reaffiliation
or merger must follow the procedures established in Montrose. These
procedures were designed to ensure that an amendment to certification
of an “exclusive representative in an existing unit”
conforms to the desires of the membership of that unit. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix,
Arizona (“BLM”), 56 FLRA 202 (2000) citing Rock
Island, 46 FLRA at 79.
A change in affiliation vote must be open to
all union members in the affected unit but not to all members
of the bargaining unit. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Gallup, New
Mexico, 34 FLRA 428 (1990); Financial Institution,
475 U.S. 192 (1986). There is no requirement that any specific number
or percentage of members must cast ballots in order for an affiliation
change to be effective, See Rock Island, 46 FLRA 76 (1992). However,
there must be union members in the unit and proof that the members
were sent notice of the meeting. See Union of Federal Employees,
41 FLRA 562 at 574 (1991). Where there are no members of the union
in the bargaining unit, Montrose does not permit the amendment of
a certification because the Montrose requirements were
designed to ensure that the sought amendment conforms to the desires
of the bargaining unit’s members. See BLM, 56 FLRA
at 207.
The Petitioner has presented uncontroverted
evidence establishing the following. The Petitioner provided advance
written notice to the membership of Teamsters Local 246 in the Employing
Office’s bargaining unit that a secret ballot election over
the proposed merger of Teamsters Local 246 into Teamsters Local
639 would be conducted on January 14, 2003, from 7:00 a.m. - 7:00
p.m., at the Union Hall, 2120 Bladensburg Road, NE, Washington,
D.C. The election was conducted under the auspices of TLB Solutions,
an independent elections supervisor; and in accord with the Teamsters
International Constitution, which covered both members of Locals
246 and 639. The tally of that secret ballot vote established that
the members of Local 246 voted “overwhelmingly” in favor
of the merger. The merger was effected on January 31, 2003. Since
that time Local 639 has been the “successor bargaining representative”
on behalf of the employees in the Employing Office’s bargaining
unit. Local 639 adopted and is administering Local 246's bargaining
agreement with the Employing Office. Moreover, the bargaining unit
members’ dues obligation, union constitutional obligations,
and the union employee in charge of servicing the bargaining unit
has remained unchanged.
Based upon the foregoing, we find that the merger
election and the subject petition satisfies the Montrose Factors
discussed above. Accordingly, we shall grant the petition.
IV. ORDER
The petition to amend the certification in Case
Nos. 99-LM-7,-9,-10,-11 is hereby allowed. The Certification of
Representative is amended to substitute Teamsters Local
Union 639, IBT, AFL-CIO for International Brotherhood
of Teamsters Local Union No. 246.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Issued, at Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2004
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this
14th day of January 2004, I delivered a copy of this Decision and
Order Amending Certification of Representative of the Board of Directors
to the following parties by the below identified means:
First-Class Mail Postage-Prepaid
& Facsimile Mail
Frederick Herrera & Gretchen E. DeMar, Esqs.
United States Capitol Police
Office of the General Counsel
119 D Street, NE, Suite 701
Washington, D.C. 20510
E. Lindsey Maxwell II, Esq.
Beins, Axelrod, Kraft, Gleason & Gibson, P.C.
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 704
Washington, D.C. 20036
Facsimile: (202)328-7030
___________________
Kisha L. Harley
Office of Compliance
|
|
|