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. Learn more.   [hide]
Office of Compliance Seal
Left Menu Bar Contact Information, Get in Touch With Us What's New Archive Proposed Rules and Rulemaking Safety and Health Procedures for Covered Employees Reports and Studies Conducted by the Office The Manual, Your Guide to the Congressional Accountability Act Other Rights Family and Medical Leave Fair Labor Standards Disability Discrimination Age Discrimination Equal Opportunity Employment Organization, Who We Are and What We Do Forms and Publications, A Library of Forms and Publications Decisions, Board of Directors Decisions
Decisions, Final Board Decisions


LA 200, John Adams Building, 110 Second Street, S. E.
Washington, D. C. 20540-1999


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



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.


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.


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.


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.


Issued, at Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2004



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

1 Member Camens did not participate in the deciding of this case.

2 Office of Compliance Case Nos. 99-LM-7,-9,-10,-11 covering a unit of the Employing Office’s non-sworn (civilian employees) employed by the U.S. Capitol Police Board as security aides, CCTV operators, or freight handlers, and all non-sworn (civilian) clerical and administrative employees by the U.S. Capitol Police Board.

3 Montrose cases are distinguishable from cases in which the union merely seeks a technical or nominal change in its certification due to a clerical or administrative error. Union mergers plainly do not fall within that category.

Questions or comments regarding this service? Contact

Text Size Link: Extra Large Text Link: Large Text Link: Meduim Text Link: Small Text

Get PDF version PDF version Get Acrobat Reader