Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 68
Mississippi Army National Guard, Jackson, Mississippi and Association of Civilian Technicians, AT-RP-00044 (Decided June 29, 2001)
The Authority denied the application for review of the RD decision finding that the petitioned for unit constituted an appropriate bargaining unit and ordered an election. The Petitioner sought to represent the employees of the Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG). The Activity filed an application for review of the RD's decision under § 2422.31(a) of the Authority's Regulations on the grounds that the RD's Decision: (1) resolved certain issues without adequate precedent in support thereof; (2) resolved certain issues in contravention of established law; (3) committed prejudicial procedural error; and (4) committed prejudicial error concerning certain factual matters. The Activity also claims that the Authority had no jurisdiction over it.
Preliminarily, the Authority concluded that MSNG was an "Agency" or an "Activity" subject to the Authority's jurisdiction and to the Statute. The Authority noted that the Technicians Act gives the guard technicians dual status as Federal civilian employees and as members of the States' national guards/militia. The Authority further noted that nothing in the Activity's arguments demonstrated that the State of Mississippi is in any way exempted from or excluded from the Technicians Act while administering the technicians program. Therefore, the Activity's contention that the Authority had no jurisdiction was rejected.
In his decision, the RD set forth and applied the appropriate criteria for determining whether a petitioned for unit constitutes an appropriate unit. In order for a unit to be considered appropriate, all three criteria--community of interest, effective dealings, and efficiency of agency operations--must be met. The Statute does not require that the proposed unit be the only appropriate unit or the most appropriate unit. Determinations as to each of the three appropriate unit criteria are made on a case-by-case basis.
Here, the Activity challenged the RD's determination that the petitioned-for unit comprised solely of MSARNG employees constituted an appropriate unit. The Activity argued that, if there was to be a bargaining unit, the only appropriate unit would be one that included both the Army and Air Force components of the National Guard--MSARNG and MSANG.
The Authority concluded that the Activity did not demonstrate that a combined unit of MSARNG and MSANG guard technicians was the only appropriate unit. Therefore, the Authority concluded that the application for review provided no basis for review of the RD's determination that the petitioned-for unit constituted an appropriate unit.