Notice of Opportunity To Submit Amici Curiae Briefs in a Representation Proceeding Pending Before the Federal Labor Relations Authority

On June 25, 1999, the Authority granted an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in U.S. Department of the Navy, Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia, Case No. WA-RP-80061 (55 FLRA No. 89 (1999)). 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 & Supp. III 1997) (the Statute) and its regulations, set forth at 5 CFR part 2422. 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

The National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) was certified in 1985 as the exclusive representative of a consolidated unit of 325 professional and nonprofessional employees of the original Weapons Station Yorktown (WSY). Working conditions for the employees were set by the commanding officer of WSY, and their competitive area for RIF was limited to WSY employees. In 1997 and 1998, the Agency underwent reorganizations. As a result of the reorganizations, the original WSY's functions were split among three separate entities: (1) WSY; (2) the Atlantic Ordnance Command (AOC); and (3) the Housing Department and Regional Resource Services Office of the U.S. Department of the Navy, Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk (COMNAVBASE). Of the bargaining unit employees who worked for WSY prior to the reorganizations, 84 employees continue to work for WSY, and they have experienced no change in their working conditions. The commanding officer of WSY now reports to the commanding officer of COMNAVBASE. Of the bargaining unit employees who worked for WSY prior to the reorganizations, 239 employees have been transferred to AOC. They have experienced no change in their working conditions, although they now report to the commanding officer of AOC, who reports, in turn, to the commanding officer of COMNAVBASE. Their competitive area for RIF is now limited to AOC employees. Three bargaining unit employees from the original WSY now work for the Housing Department of COMNAVBASE, and three other bargaining unit employees from the original WSY now work for the Regional Resource Services Office of COMNAVBASE. Their working conditions have not changed, except that one of the employees now splits his time between Yorktown and COMNAVBASE's Norfolk headquarters. The six employees report to the commanding officer of COMNAVBASE. Their competitive area for RIF includes all COMNAVBASE employees. The Agency has conducted simultaneous negotiations with NAGE for employees of both WSY and AOC, and has submitted similar, but not identical, proposals to the Union to cover employees of both entities.

B. The Regional Director's Decision

The Regional Director dismissed the Union's petition seeking certification of a unit consisting of all of the employees of the original WSY. The Regional Director found that WSY, AOC, and COMNAVBASE constitute three distinct activities, and as such, the employees are now employed by three different entities. Specifically, he found that the employees' working conditions are set by three different commanding officers, they are in three different competitive areas for RIF, and they support three different missions. The Regional Director concluded that the employees do not continue to share a community of interest, and that, consequently, the unit is not appropriate, within the meaning of section 7122(a) of the Statute. The Regional Director also found that recognition of the proposed unit would not promote effective dealings with the Agency, because the working conditions of the employees are established by three separate commanding officers, and because two different human resources offices provide personnel services to the employees. The Regional Director dismissed the petition.

C. The Application for Review

NAGE filed the application for review, contending that review of the Regional Director's decision is warranted, under 5 CFR 2422.31, because: There is an absence of relevant Authority precedent; the Regional Director failed to apply established precedent; the Regional Director committed several clear and prejudicial errors concerning substantial factual matters; and established law and policy warrants reconsideration.

D. Question on Which Briefs Are Solicited

The Authority granted the application for review under 5 CFR 2422.31(c). The Authority found that Authority precedent warrants reconsideration because that precedent does not provide sufficient guidance in cases where units have been certified on an installation- wide basis, and where organizational changes affect the chains of command but do not otherwise affect day-to-day working conditions of bargaining unit employees. In granting the application on these grounds, the Authority found that some precedent supports a conclusion that changes in chains of command are sufficient to destroy a unit's community of interest, while other precedent supports continued recognition of the existing unit despite such changes in chains of command. The Authority directed the parties in the case to file briefs addressing the following question: How should the Authority assess the effect on bargaining units of reorganizations that modify portions of the chains of command at managerial levels, but do not affect the day- to-day working conditions of bargaining unit employees? 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 this issue.

For the Authority.

Dated: June 28, 1999. Peter Constantine, Director of Case Control. [FR Doc. 99-16760 Filed 6-30-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6727-01-P