This web site was copied prior to January 20, 2005. It is now a Federal record managed by the National Archives and Records Administration. External links, forms, and search boxes may not function within this collection.
[Federal Register: August 17, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 158)]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
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
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
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
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.
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
Dated: August 12, 1999.
For the Authority.
Director of Case Control.
[FR Doc. 99-21279 Filed 8-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P