Rulings on Requests for Review of the

Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Labor-Management Relations

Pursuant to Executive

Order 11491, As Amended

Volume 1

January 1,1970 through June 30,1975

This Volume includes Assistant Secretary Rulings on Requests 

for Review Nos. 1-533

U.S. Department of Labor 

John T. Dunlop, Secretary

Labor-Management Services Administration 

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Office of Federal Labor-Management Relations 

Louis S. Wallerstein, Director

F o r sale by the Superintendent o f Docum ents, U .S. Governm ent P rin tin g Office 

W ashington, D.C., 20402-P rice $6.90 

Stock Num ber 029-000-00259-2
■J1

■ \J

y
)

PREFACE

&

This Volume o f Rulings on Requests for Review of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations Pursuant to Executive Order 11491, As Amended, covers the period from January 1, 1970, 

through June 30, 1975. It is comprised of letters containing the Rulings by the Assistant Secretary in 

consideration of Requests for Review of actions by Assistant Regional Directors.

Ill

TABLE

Numerical Table of Rulings

/

Alphabetical Table of Rulings

Text of Rulings

O F CONTENTS

' PAGE

1

51

67

V

NUMERICAL TABLE OF RULINGS ON REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

SHOWING DATE ISSUED, AREA OFFICE CASE NUMBER(S ), TYPE OF CASE AND ACTION

R/R, No.

1

CASE NAME

U.S. Department of the Air Force

Headquarters 910th Tactical Air

Support Group (AFRES)

Youngstown Municipal Airport

Vienna, Ohio

Veterans Administration Hospital

Chicago, Illinois

Department of the Army

U.S. Military Academy

West Point, New York

AREA OFFICE

DATE ISSUED CASE NO(S). TYPE OF CASE */ ACTION **/ PAGE

6-30-70

6-30-70

6-30-70

53-2973

50-4383

30-2547

RO

R0

RO

Remanded 67

for Hearing

Remanded

for Hearing

Request

Denied

67

68

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

7-8-70 32-1506 ULP Request

Denied

68

U.S. Treasury Department

Bureau of Customs

Region V, New Orleans, Louisiana

3-20-70 64-1098 R0 Request

Denied

69

U.S. Treasury Department

Internal Revenue Service

New Orleans District

New Orleans, Louisiana

8-12-70 64-1099

Long Beach Naval Station

Long Beach, California

8-24-70 72-1480 Obj Request 70

Denied

*/ TYPE OF CASE

AC = Amendment of Recognition

CHALL Challenged Ballots Resolution

CU = Clarification of Unit

DR » Decertification of Exclusive Representative

GA = Grievability or Arbitrability (previously refered to as an AP case)

MISC = Miscellaneous

OBJ = Objections to Election

RA = Certification of Representative (Activity Petition)

RO = Certification of Representative (Labor Organization Petition)

S = Standards of Conduct

ULP = Unfair Labor Practice

1 ** The position of Assistant Regional Director (ARD) previously

carried the title of Regional Administrator.

1
CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

Social Security Administration

District Office

Albany, New York

Pueblo Army Depot

Pueblo, Colorado

General Services Administration

Federal Supply Service

Raritan Arsenal

Raritan, New Jersey

Red River Army Depot

Department of the Army

Keesler Technical Training Center

Biloxi, Mississippi

U.S. Treasury Department

Internal Revenue Service

Indianapolis District

Indianapolis, Indiana

Long Beach Naval Station

Fire Fighters Unit

Long Beach, California

Colorado Air National Guard

Denver, Colorado

U.S. Treasury Department

Bureau of Customs

Region V

New Orleans, Louisiana

Charleston Naval Shipyard

Charleston, South Carolina

General Services Administration

Federal Supply Service

Raritan Arsenal Depot

Raritan, New Jersey

8-21-70

8-24-70

8-12-70

9-3-70

9-21-70

9-8-70

6-30-70

9-25-70

10-14-70

10-16-70

10-28-70

2

.35-1254

61-1049

32-1567

63-2044

41-1716

50-4570

50-4558

72-1486

61-1024

64-1098

64-1132

40-1926

32-1567

AREA OFFICE

CASE N0(S).

DR Remanded

for Hearing

R0 Request

Denied

RO Remanded

for Hearing

TYPE OF CASE ACTION

Obj Request

Denied

DR Request

Denied

RO Request

Denied

R0 Request

Denied

Obj Request

Denied

RO Request

Denied

R0 Request

Denied

R0 Request

Denied

70

71

71

72

74

75

75

76

77

77

78

PAGE
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

18 National Aeronautics and Space 11-2-70

Administration (NASA)

Audit Division, (Code DU)

Washington, D.C.

19 Department of Health, Education, 10-21-70

and Welfare

Division of Indian Health

Public Health Service

Intermountain Indian School

Health Center

Brigham City,Utah

20 Arkansas National Guard 11-2-70

North Little Rock, Arkansas

21 U.S. Treasury Department 10-16-70

Internal Revenue Service

San Francisco, California

22 U.S. Army Weapons Command 11-19-70

Rock Island, Illinois

23 Department of the Army 12-7-70

Tooele Army Depot

Tooele, Utah

24 Department of Health, Education, 12-4-70

and Welfare

Social Security Administration

District Office

Albany, New York

25 General Services Administration 12-8-70

Memphis, Tennessee

26 Veterans Administration Hospital 12-7-70

Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

27 Veterans Administration Hospital 12-18-70

Durham, North Carolina

28 Charleston Naval Shipyard 1-5-71

Charleston, South Carolina

3

46-1848

61-1077

64-1136

70-1499

72-1482

50-4618

61-1041

35-1254

41-1736

31-3178

40-1945

40-1926

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0(S). TYPE OF CASE

RO

Obj

ULP

RO

Obj

Obj

Obj

RO

Obj

Obj

RO

Request

Denied

ACTION

Request

Denied

Remanded

to ARD

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

v Request

Denied

Request

. Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

29 Headquarters, Army and Air Force

Exchange Service

Randolph Air Force Base Exchange

Universal City, Texas

1-13-71

30 Tennessee Valley Authority

Engineers Association

Knoxville, Tennessee

10-22-70

31 Downey Veterans Administration

Hospital' \

Downey, Illinois

2-3-71

32 Sacramento Army Depot

Sacramento, California

2-3-71

33 Veterans Administration Center

Fort Harrison

Helena,, Montana

2-1-71

34 U.S. Army Signal Center;

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

2-22-71

35 Post Exchange, U.S. Army •

Training Center

Fort Jackson

Columbia, South Carolina

2-22-71

36 National Labor Relations

Board (NLRB)

Region 17

Kansas City, Missouri

2-26-71

37 Bureau of Customs

Department of the Treasury

San Juan, Puerto Rico

2-26-71

38

39

U.S. Post Office Department

Stratford, New Jersey

U.S. Naval Underwater Weapons

and Research Engineering

Section

Newport, Rhode Island

2-26-71

3-1-71

4

63-2015

Undocketed

50-4634

70-1817

61-1180

32-1836

40-1995

60-1943

37-834

32-1795

31-3252

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE

Obj

Misc

Obj

ULP

RO

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

ULP

Obj

Request

Denied

ACTION

Policy

Decision

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

Remanded

to ARD

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

87

88 

89

89

90

90

91

91

92

93

93

PAGE
40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

R/R N o . CASE NAME

Open Messes Clubs

U.S. Naval Station

Naval Supply Center

Newport, Rhode Island

Veterans Administration

Regional Office

Newark, New Jersey

Department of Army

Corps of Engineers

St. Paul, Minnesota

Defense Supply Agency

Defense Personnel Support Center

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Frankford Arsenal

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Frankford Arsenal

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

U.S. Naval Radio Station

Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico

Naval Electronic Systems

Command Activity

Boston, Massachusetts

Consumer & Marketing Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Postal Service

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

Norton Air Force Base

San Bernardino, California

Veterans Administration Hospital

Butler, Pennsylvania

DATE ISSUED

3-1-71

3-1-71

3-1-71

3-10-71

3-10-71

3-15-71

3-15-71

3-17-71

3-18-71

3-18-71

3-18-71

3-23-71

3-30-71

5

37-818

31-3256

32-1498

32-1499

51-1233

20-2179

20-2144

45-1855

37-836

31-3371

22-1913

21-2282

72-1512

21-2205

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE

Obj

Obj

Obj

ULP

Obj

ULP

Obj

ULP

RO

ULP

Misc

Obj

R0

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

ACTION

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

to ARD

94

95

96

97

97

98

98

99

100

100

101

101

PAGE

102
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

5 3 Veterans Administration Hospital

East Orange, New Jersey

5 4 Kaiserslautern American High

School

APO New York

5 5 Picatinny Arsenal

Dover, New Jersey

56 Department of Navy, Roosevelt

Roads Naval Base

Ceiba, Puerto Rico

57 Department of Defense

Department of the Army

White Sands Missile Range

Las Cruces, New Mexico

58 Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management

Sacramento, California

59 Post Office Department

St. Petersburg, Florida

60 Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, D.C.

61 Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare (DHEW)

Public Health Service

Indian Hospital,

Albuquerque, New Mexico

62 Post Office Department

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

63 Department of the Air Force

Electronics System Division

L.G. Hanscom Field

Bedford, Massachusetts

4-7-71

4-7-71

12-21-70

4-13-71

4-26-71

4-26-71

4-26-71

4-22-71

4-28-71

4-28-71

4-28-71

6

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

32-1803 RO Request

Denied

46-1807 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

32-1798 RO Request

Denied

37-768 Obj Request

37-775 Denied

63-2273 Obj Request

Denied

70-1583 Obj Request

Denied

42-1203 ULP Request

Denied

22-2145 RO Request

Denied

k

63-2327 Obj Request

Denied

32-1781 ULP Request

Denied

31-3338 Obj Request

Denied

103

103

104

105

106

106

107

108

108

109

110
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

64 U.S. Navy Autodin Switch Center 4-30-71

U.S. Marine Corps Supply Center

Albany, Georgia

65 U.S. Army Transportation Center 4-30-71

Fort Eustis

Newport News, Virginia

66 U.S. Department of Navy 4-30-71

Naval Communications Station

Norfolk, Virginia

67 South Carolina Air National Guard 4-30-71

McEntire Air Force Base

Columbia, South Carolina

68 Department of Transportation 5-10-71

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, D.C.

69 Defense Supply Agency 5-10-71

Tracy, California

70 U.S. Department of Agriculture 5-10-71

Soil Conservation Service

Des Moines, Iowa

71 Federal Aviation Administration 5-14-71

New York Air Route Traffic

Control Center

Ronkonkoma, New York

72 Aviation Supply Office 5-17-71

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

73 National Labor Relations Board 5-20-71

Washington, D.C.

74 U.S. Post Office 5-20-71

Charlotte, North Carolina

75 U.S. Army, Patterson Hospital 5-20-71

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

7

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

40-2608 RO

22-1745 Obj

22-1928 RO

40-2277 ULP

22-2145 RO

70-1546 Obj

62-2309 RO

30-3213 RO

20-2071 Obj

22-1976 ULP

40-2598 ULP

32-2030 RO

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

111

111

112

112

113

113

114

115

116

117

120 

120
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

76 U.S. Treasury Department 5-20-71

Internal Revenue Service

Washington, D.C.

77 Veterans Administration and 5-20-71

VA Data Processing Center

Fort Snelling

St. Paul, Minnesota

78 Virgin Island District 5-27-71

Bureau of Customs

St. Croix, Virgin Islands

■ o ' . '

79 Defense Contract Administration 5-27-71

Services District

Rochester, New York

80 Department of Transportation 5-27-71

Federal Aviation Administration

Kansas City, Missouri

i

81 General Services Administration 5-27-71

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

82 Department of Navy, Portsmouth 5-27-71

Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, New Hampshire

83 Naval Underwater Weapons 5-27-71

Research & Engineering Station

Newport, Rhode Island

84 ' , Air National Guard 6-4-71

Concord, New Hampshire

85 U.S. Air Force Headquarters 6-7-71

Military Airlift Command

Scott Air Force Base x

Belleville, Illinois

86 Defense Supply Agency 6-7-71

Boston, Massachusetts ,

87 Travis Air Force Base 6-8-71

Fairfield, California

8

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION

22-1916

22-1917

22-1918

CU Request

Denied

51-1517 Obj Request

Denied

42-1497 RO Request

Denied

35-1321 Obj Request

Denied

60-2101 Obj Request

Denied

20-2246 RO Request

Denied

31-3278 RO . . Request

Denied

31-4388 RO Request

Denied

31-3398 ULP Request

Denied

50-4432 ULP Request

Denied

31-4300 RO Request

Denied

121

122

123

123

124

125

125

126

127

128

128

PAGE

70-1836 Obj Request

Denied

129
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

U.S. Post Office

Atlanta, Georgia

Department of the Army

Picatinny Arsenal

Dover, New Jersey

National Labor Relations Board

(NLRB), Region 17

Red River A m y Depot

Texarkana, Texas

Washington Printing Pressmen's

Union No. 1, IPPA

Washington, D.C.

Veterans Administration Hospital

Amarillo, Texas

Department of the Navy

U.S. Naval Station

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Veterans Administration Hospital

Miami, Flotida

U.S. Post Office

Hammond, Indiana

U.S. Naval Exchange

U.S. Naval Station

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Picatinny Arsenal

Department of the Army

Dover, New Jersey

Federal Aviation Administration

New York Air Route Traffic Control

Center

Ronkonkoma, New York

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

6-8-71

6-8-71

6-18-71

6-21-71

6-7-71

6-21-71

6-23-71

6-23-71

6-25-71

6-25-71

6-25-71

6-25-71

6-28-71

9

AREA OFFICE

CASE N O ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

40-2384 ULP

32-1954 ULP

60-1943 ULP

63-2572 RO

22-2333 ULP

63-2176 Obj

37-776 Obj

37-780

42-1451 RO

53-3387 ULP

37-791 Obj

32-1818 ULP

30-3213 RO

22-2551

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

to ARD

.Remanded

to ARD

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

to ARD

130

130

131

132

133

133

136

137

138

139

139

140

141
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110 

111

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, D.C.

81st Army Command

Tampa, Florida

Internal Revenue Service

Office of Regional Counsel

Western Region

San Francisco, California'

Federal Aviation Administration

National Aviation Facilities

Experimental Station

Atlantic City, New Jersey

U.S. Army Electronics Command

(TRI-TAC)

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

U.S. Post Office Department

Dallas Postal Region

Dallas, Texas

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Customs, Region I

Boston, Massachusetts

Internal Revenue Service

Jacksonville District

Jacksonville, Florida

Department of the Navy

Corpus Christi Naval Air Station

Corpus Christi, Texas

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

St. Louis Area Office

St. Louis, Missouri

6-30-71

7-2-71

7-12-71

7-12-71

7-16-71

7-23-71

7-27-71

7-30-71

8-3-71

8-3-71

8-6-71

10

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

22-1990 ULP Request

et al Denied

42-1419 ULP Request

Denied

70-1877 R0 Request

Denied

32-1834 Obj Request

Denied

32-2201 RO Request

Denied

63-2837 ULP Request

Denied

22-2007 ULP Request

et al Denied

31-3306 Obj Remanded

for Hearing

42-1505 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

63-2657 RO Request

Denied

62-2363 R0 Request

Denied

141

142

143

143

144

145

145

146

147

148

148
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120 

121

122

123

U.S. Geological Survey 8-6-71

Pacific Coast Center

Menlo Park, California

U.S. Air Force 8-10-71

Hill Air Force Base

Ogden, Utah

U.S. Army Electronics Command 8-20-71

Civilian Personnel Field Office

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Selective Service System 8-20-71

State of California

Sacramento, California

U.S. Naval Station 8-27-71

Newport, Rhode Island

Department of Commerce 8-30-71

National Weather Service

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Federal Aviation Administration 8-30-71

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Naval War College 9-3-71

Newport Naval Base

Newport, Rhode Island

U.S. Army Engineer Center 9-3-71

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

Department of the Navy 9-3-71

Naval Air Rework Facility

Naval Air Station

Jacksonville, Florida

Veterans Administration Hospital 9-30-71

East Orange, New Jersey

Internal Revenue Service 9-30-71

Boston District

Boston, Massachusetts

11

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0(S). TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

70-1829 Obj

61-1366 ULP

20-2498 RO

70-1824 Obj

31-4387 RO

37-932 RO

22-2651 ULP

22-2654

31-3348 Obj

22-2234 Obj

42-1374 Obj

32-2239 ULP

31-4374 Obj

Remanded

for Hearing

Case Reopened

at Regional

Level

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Reques't

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

149

150

150

151

152

153

154

154

155

157

159

160
R /R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Unit II, Boston Area Office

Boston, Massachusetts

Minot Air Force Base

Minot, North Dakota

General Services Administration

Cleveland Field Office

Cleveland, Ohio

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

Navy Exchange

U.S. Naval Air Station

Quonset Point, Rhode Island

Naval Air Station Commissary

Stores --

Quonset Point, Rhode Island

Department of the Air Force

Electronics System Division

Bedford, Massachusetts

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Procurement and Production

Directorate, Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Post Office Department

Weirton Post Office

Weirton, West Virginia

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Medical Department Activities

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

9-30-71

9-30-71

9-30-71

10-21-71

10-29-71

11-2-71

11-19-71

11-19-71

11-19-71

11-26-71

31-4380 Obj Remanded

to ARD

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION

60-1893 ULP Request

Denied

53-3792 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

22-2551 ULP Request

Denied

31-4623 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

31-3396 Obj Request

Granted

31-3338 Obj Request

Denied

32-2003 R0 Request

Denied

21-2240 ULP Request

Denied

32-1995 Obj Request

Denied

161

162

162

163

164

164

165

166

167

167

PAGE
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

U.S. Department of the Army 11-30-71

U.S. Army Signal Center

and School

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Charleston Naval Shipyard 11-30-71

Charleston, South Carolina

U.S. Information Agency 11-30-71

Washington, D.C.

Charleston Naval Shipyard 12-9-71

Charleston, South Carolina

New Hampshire Air National Guard 12-14-71

Pease Air Force Base

Portsmouth, New Hampshire

Air Technician Detachment at 12-15-71

Dobbins AFB, Georgia &

Travis Field, Savannah, Georgia

Sandia Area Exchange 12-16-71

Kirtland Air Force Base

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Department of the Army 12-28-71

Military Ocean Terminal

Bayonne, New Jersey

Federal Aviation Administration 1-14-72

Washington, D.C.

Defense Communications Agency (DCA) 1-14-72

Field Office

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

U.S. Naval Shipyard 1-14-72

Portsmouth, New Hampshire

13

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION

32-2004 Obj Request

Denied

40-1926 Obj Request'

Denied

22-2533 RO Request

Denied

40-3404 ULP Request

Denied

31-4304 RO Request

Denied

40-3147 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

63-2614 CU Request

Denied

32-1704 Misc Request

Withdrawn

22-2603 R0 Request

Denied

32-2457 RO Request

Denied

168

169

172

173

173

174

174

175

176

176

PAGE

31-5458 ULP Request

Denied

177
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

145

146

147

148

149

1.50

151

152

153

154

155

Social Security Admitiistration

Chicago Payment Center

Chicago, Illinois

Veterans Administration Center

Bath, New York

Veterans Administration Center

Bath, New York

Department of the Air Force

Patrick Air Force Base

Cocoa, Florida

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Little Rock District

Pine Bluff Resident Office

Pine Bluff, Arkansas

Federal Aviation Administration

Miami Air Route Traffic Control

Center, Miami Air Route Traffic

Control Tower

Miami, Florida

U. S. Air Force

Hill Air Force Base

Ogden, Utah

U.S. Post Office

St.Louis, Missouri

U.S. Postal Service

St. Louis Postal Service

St. Louis, Missouri

U.S. Army

Ryukyu Islands

Department of the Army Headquarters

Fort Campbell

Hopkinsville, Kentucky

1-18-72

1-19-72

1-19-72

1-19-72

1-20-72

1-24-72

1-26-72

1-26-72

1-26-72

1-26-72

1-26-72

14

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

50-5557 ULP Request

Denied

35-1796 RO Request

Denied

35-1810 RO Request

Denied

42-1468 ULP Request

Denied

64-1318 ULP Request

Denied

42-1648

42-1759

RO Request

Denied

61-1366 -ULP Request

Denied

62-2414 ULP Request

Denied

62-2664 ULP Request

Denied

22-2398 CU Request

Denied

41-2386 ULP Request

Denied

178

178

179

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

Army and Air Force Exchange 1-27-72

Service

MacDill Consolidated Exchange

MacDill Air Force Base

.Tampa, Florida

Federal Aviation Administration 1-31-72

Washington, D.C.

Federal Aviation Administration 1-31-72

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Training Center 1-31-72

Ft. Jackson Laundry Facility

Ft. Jackson

Columbia, South Carolina

Department of the Air Force 1-31-72

U.S. Air Force Academy

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Federal Aviation Administration 1-31-72

Aeronautical Center

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Veterans Administration Hospital 1-31-72

Brecksville, Ohio

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 2-28-72

Education Employees

National Council of Bureau of

Indian Affairs Educators (NCBIAE)

National Education Association (NEA)

Albuquerque, New Mexico

U. S. Post Office 2-28-72

Bettendorf, Iowa

U.S. Army Electronics Command 2-29-72

Army Aviation Detachment

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

15

42-1169 Obj Request

Denied

AREA OFFICE

CASE N0(S). TYPE OF CASE ACTION

22-2000 ULP Request

et al Denied

22-2141 ULP Request

Denied

40-3491 ULP Request

Denied

22-2694 ULP Remanded

to ARD

63-2948 ULP Request

Denied

53-4156 RO Request

Denied

63-2691 RO Remanded

to ARD

62-2447 ULP ^ Request

Denied

32-2468 RO Request

Denied

187

187

188

188

189

189

190

191

191

192

PAGE
CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

John F. Kennedy Space Center

Kennedy Space Center

Orlando, Florida

Naval Air Rework Facility

U.S.Naval Air Station

Norfolk, Virginia

Tinker Air Force Base

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Veterans Administration

Washington, D.C.

Veterans Administration Hospital

East Orange,New Jersey

Headquarters, Third Army

Fort McPherson

Atlanta, Georgia

U.S. Army School Training Center

Fort McClellan

Anniston, Alabama

U.S. Naval Air Station

Quonset Point, Rhode Island

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Internal Revenue Service

Memphis Service Center

Memphis, Tennessee

2024th Communications Squadron

Moody Air Force Base

Valdosta, Georgia

Federal Aviation Administration

Great Lakes Region

Airport Division

Des Plaines, Illinois

2-29-72

2-29-72

3-23-72

3-23-72

3-22-72

3-21-72

3-21-72

3-21-72

3-28-72

4-25-72

4-25-72

4-25-72

16

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

42-1762

22-2568

63-3202

22-2635

32-2463

40-3036

40-3048

31-5476

32-1843

41-2763

40-3501

50-5529

ULP Remanded

for Hearing

Obj Remanded

to ARD

ULP Request

Denied

R0 Request

Denied

DR Request

Denied

ULP Request

Denied

RO Remanded

for Hearitig

Obj Request

Denied

RO Request

Denied

ULP Request

Denied

CU Remanded

for Hearing

192

193

195

196

196

197

198

199

200 

200 

201
J

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

General Services Administration 4-25-72

Region 2

Trenton, New Jersey

Corps of Engineers 4-26-72

Philadelphia District

Customs House

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Defense Supply Agency 4-28-72

Defense Depot

Memphis, Tennessee ■

U.S. Army Natick Laboratories 4-28-72

Natick, Massachusetts

Department of Air Force 4-28-72'

Moody Air Force Base

Valdosta, Georgia

U.S. Army Electronics Command 4-28-72

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Air Training Command 4-28-72

Lowry Technical Training Center

Lowry Air Force Base

Denver, Colorado

Comptroller Directorate 4-28-72

Tooele Army Depot

Tooele, Utah

U.S. Naval Air Rework Facility 4-28-72

Quonset Point, Rhode Island

Veterans Administration Hospital 4-28-72

Amarillo, Texas

U.S. Army Natick Laboratories 5-10-72

Natick, Massachusetts

17

32-2426 CU Request

Denied

AREA OFFICE

CASE N0(S). TYPE OF CASE ACTION

20-2952 CU Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

61-1481 RO Request

Denied

31-5475 RO Remanded

for Hearing

63-2176 Obj Request

Denied

31-5480 ULP Request

Denied

41-2672 RO

31-5463 ULP

40-3095 Obj

32-2473 ULP

61-1514 ULP

202

203

204

204

205

207

207

208

209

210 

211

PAGE

v.
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

U.S. Dept, of Agriculture

Agricultural Quarantine

Inspection Division

San Juan, Puerto Rico

U.S. Army Aeronautical Depot

Maintenance Center

Corpus Christi, Texas

Federal Aviation Administration

Atlanta Air Traffic Control Tower

Atlanta, Georgia

Dept, of Housing and Urban Development

Detroit, Michigan

Health Services and Mental Health

Administration, Public Health Service

Dept, of Health, Education and

Welfare

Marion, Illinois

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

U.S. Public Health Service Hospital

Dept. Of Health, Education and Welfare

Dept, of the Army, Picatinny

Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey

Defense Supply Agency

Tracy, California

Dept, of the Navy

Naval Ship Repair Facility

Guam, Mariana Island

General Services Administration

Communication Division

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

5-10-72

5-18-72

5-31-72

5-31-72

5-31-72

6-22-72

6-22-72

6-22-72

6-22-72

6-22-72

6-28-72

7-13-72

18

37-1015

AREA OFFICE

CASE N0(S). TYPE OF CASE

RO Request

Denied

ACTION

63-2865 . Obj Request

Denied

40-3470 ULP Remanded for

Hearing

52-3582

50-5191

Obj

RO

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

46-1617

46-1617

70-1803

32-2475

70-2418

73-436

Obj

Obj

Obj

ULP

RO

Obj

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

20-3000 ULP Request

Denied

211

212

213

214

215

215

217

218

219

219

220

220

PAGE
R/R No.

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

CASE NAME

Internal Revenue Service

Manhattan District

New York, New York

General Services Administration

Region 3

Washington, D.C.

Dept, of the Navy

Naval Air Rework Facility

Naval Air Station

Norfolk, Virginia

Dept of the Navy

Naval Supply Center

Norfolk, Virginia

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

Marine Corps Supply Center

Barstow, California

American Federation of Government

Employees (AFGE)

Dept, of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) - Council of Locals, Region 11

Orange, New Jersey

U.S. Dept, of Agriculture (USDA)

Northern Marketing and Nutrition

Research Division

Agricultural Research Service

Peoria, Illinois

U.S. Electronics Command

Dept, of the Army .

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Denver Air Route Traffic Center

Longmont, Colorado

DATE ISSUED

7-14-72

7-14-72

7-18-72

7-18-72

7-21-72

7-24-72

7-26-72

7-26-72

7-27-72

7-27-72

19

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

30-4099

22-2616

22-2617

22-2568

22-2949

22-2669

72-2948

30-3754

50-5165

32-2811

61-1492

ULP Request

Denied

Obj Request

Denied

Obj Request

Denied

ULP Remanded for

Hearing

Remanded for

Hearing

Request

Denied

MISC Request

Withdrawn

MISC Request

Withdrawn

ULP

ULP

ULP Request

Denied

ULP Request

Denied

221

222

223

225

225

226

227

227

228.

229
CASE NAME

Dept, of the Army

Vint Hill Farm Station

>

Warrenton, Va.

Army and Air Force Exchange Service

Fort Rucker

Ozark, Alabama

U.S. Army Natick Laboratories

Natick, Massachusetts

Dept, of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Great Lakes Region

Des Plaines, Illinois

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Fort Monmouth

Red BAnk, New Jersey

U.S. Army Advanced Ballistic

Missile Defense Agency

Huntsville Office

Huntsville, Alabama

Chicago Payment Center

Social Security Administration

Chicago, Illinois

Chicago Payment Center

Social Security Administration

Federal Labor Relations

Council

Washington, D.C.

Public Health Service (PHS)

Indian Hospital

Federal Aviation Administration

Fort Worth Air Route

Traffic Control Center

Fort Worth, Texas

DATE ISSUED

7-27-72

7-28-72

7-31-72

7-31-72

7-31-72

7-31-72

7-31-72

7-31-72

8-22-72

8-24-72

8-31-72

22-2973 ULP Request

Denied

AREA OFFICE

CASE N O ( S ) ■ TYPE OF CASE ACTION

40-4164 ULP Request

Denied

31-5584 ULP Request

Denied

53-4775 CU Request

et al Denied

32-2565 RO Request

Denied

40-3672 Obj Request

Denied

50-8236 ULP Request

Denied

50-5595 ULP Request

Denied

41-2792 ULP Request

Denied

63-3347 ULP Request

Denied

63-2991 ULP Request

Denied

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

236

237

237

PAGE

20
R/R No. CASE NAME

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

Public Health Service (PHS)

Indian Hospital

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Veterans Administration.Hospital

Amarillo, Texas

Naval Air Engineering Center

U.S. Naval Air Base

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

U.S. Naval Shipyard

^Portsmouth, New Hamsphire

Federal Aviation Administration

Boston Air Route Traffic Center

Nashua, New Hampshire

Dept, of Health, Education and

Welfare, Social Security Administration

Chicago Payment Center

Chicago , Illinois

. Dept of the Army

U.S. Army Communication Systems

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Portland Area Office

Dept. Of Housing and Urban Development

Portland, Oregon

Human Development Corporation

of Metropolitan St. Louis

St. Louis, Missouri

Social Security Administration

Lawton, Oklahoma

Dept, of Defense

Defense Contracts Administration

Services District

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

AREA OFFICE

DATED ISSUED CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION

9-12-72 63-3347 ULP Request

Denied

9-29-72

9-29-72

63-2176

20-3106

Obj

Obj

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

9-29-72 31-6057 ULP Request

Denied

10-13-72 31-6076 R0 Request

Denied

10-25-72 50-5986 ULP Request

Denied

10-31-72 32-2580 Obj Request

Denied

11-1-72 71-1770 Obj Remanded

to ARD

11-1-72 62-3268 RO Request

Denied

11-2-72 63-3904 DR Request

Denied

11-3-72 50-8229 ULP Request

Denied

21

238

239

240

241

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

PAGE
R/R No. CASE NAME

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

Dept, of the Army

Waterways Experiment Station

Vicksburg, Mississippi

National Aviation Facility

Experimental Center, Federal

Aviation Administration Dept,

of Transporation

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

U.S. Naval Post Graduate School

Monterey, California

National Atmospheric

and Oceanic Administration

National Weather Service

Washington, D.C.

Veterans Administration Hospital

Montgomery, Alabama

Dept, of the Army

Materials & Mechanics Research Center

Watertown, Massachusetts

U.S. Dept, of Navy

U.S. Navy Public Works Center

Waukegan, Illinois

Dept, of the Army, Military

Ocean Terminal Bayonne, New Jersey

Dept, of the Army, U.S. Army

Materials & Mechanics Research Center

Watertown, Massachusetts

U.S. Dept, of Justice

Immigiation and Naturalization Service

Washington, D.C.

DATE ISSUED

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

11-23-72

11-28-72

11-30-72

11-30-72

11-30-72

12-13-72

12-13-72

12-26-72

12-26G72

1-10-73

1-22-73

41-2788 RO • Remanded to 248

ARD

32-2871 ULP Request 249

Denied

32-2851 ULP

70-2426 R0

22-3589 R0

40-4280 . ULP

31-6069 RO

31-6073

50-8947 ULP

32-1704 Obj

31-6069 RO

31-6073

22-3617 ULP

Remanded for . 250

Hearing

Request 250

Denied

Request 251

Denied

Request 252

Denied

Remanded to 253

ARD

Request 254

Denied

Request 255

Denied

Request 256

Denied

Request 257

Denied

22
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

Dept, of the Army, Aberdeen

Proving Gound Command,

Aberdeen Proving Gound

Aberdeen, Maryland

Defense Supply Agency

Defense Contract Administration

Services Region

Federal Aviation Administration

National Capital Airports Fire Dept.

Washington, D.C.

Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area

Tinker Air Force Base

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

Keesler Technical Training Center

Keesler Air Force Base

Biloxi, Mississippi

U.S. Air Force

Aeronautical Systems Division

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Dayton, Ohio

Dept, of the Army

Directorate, U.S. Dependent Schools

European Area

APO New York

U.S. Air Force

Air Force Special Weapons Center

Kirtland Air Force Base

Albuquerque, New Mexico

U.S. Army Combat Development Command

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

1-22-73

1-22-73

1-22-73

1-22-73

1-22-73

1-22-73

1-29-73

2-7-73

2-7-73

2-9-73

23

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

22-3519 RA

31-6092 RO

22-3711 RO

63-4047 ULP

22-3570 ULP

41-3137 Obj

53-6147 Obj

22-3575 ULP

63-3793 AC

Remanded for

Hearing

Remanded fpr

Hearing

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded for

Hearing

257

258

258

260

260

261

262

263

264

32-2870

32-2877

RO Request

Denied

264
CASE NAME

Social Security Administration

Regional Office

New York, New York

U.S. Air Force Aeronautical

System Division

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Dayton, Ohio

Riverside District and Land Office

Bureau of Land Management

Riverside, California

U.S. Dept, of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

National Weather Service

El Paso, Texas

Social Security Administration

Regional Offie

New York, New York

U.S. Army Medical Corps

Tripler Army Medical Center

Honolulu, Hawaii

National Park Service

John F. Kennedy Center for the

Performing Arts

Washington, D.C.

Office of Economic Opportunity,

Region V

Chicago, Illinois

U.S. Air Force Aeronautical

Systems Division

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Dayton, Ohio

U.S. Air Force

804th Combat Support Group

Grand Forks Air Force Base

Grand Forks, North Dakota

AREA OFFICE

DATE ISSUED CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

2-12-73 30-4720 ULP Request

Denied

2-22-73 53-6147 Obj Request

Denied

2-28-73 72-2763 Obj Request

Denied

3-2-73 63-4028 GA Request

Denied

3-9-73 30-4720 ULP Request

Denied

3-14-73 73-498 Obj Request

Denidd

3-14-73 22-3701 RO Remanded for

Hearing

3-14-73 50-8232 ULP Request

Denied

3-14-73 53-6147 Obj Request

Denied

3-27-73 60-3219 RO Remanded for

Hearing

265

267

267

269

270

270

271

272

273

274
R/R No. CASE NAME

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

Army & Air Force Exchange Service

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Dept, of the Army

U.S. Army Signal Center & School

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Dept, of the Army

U.S. Army Satellite Communications Agency

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Military Ocean Terminal

Bayonne, New Jersey

Dept, of Air Force

Headquarters, 4756th Air Force

Base Group

Tyndall Air Force Base

Panama City, Florida

/

U.S. Dept, of Army

St. Louis District

Corps of Engineers

St. Louis, Missouri

Dept, of Air Force

Keesler Technical Training Center

Biloxi, Mississippi

U.S. Dept, of Agriculture

Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation

Kansas City, Missouri

Army & Air Force Exchange Service

Southeast Exchange Region Warehouse

Fort Bragg

Fayetteville, North Carolina

DATE ISSUED

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) ■ TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

4-2-73 32-3172 RO Request

Denied

4—27— 73 32—2861 ULP Request

Denied

4-27-73 32-2862 ULP Request

Denied

4-27-73 32-3101 ULP Remanded

4—30— 73 42—2227 ULP Request

Denied

4-30-73 62-3525 ULP Request

Denied

4-30-73 41-3193 ULP Request

Denied

5-14-73 60-2151 Obj Request

Denied

5-14-73 40-4365 Obj Remanded

274

275

275

276

276

277

278

279

279

25
CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

U.S. Air Force Aeronautical Systems

Division

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Dayton, Ohio

Dept, of Health, Education and.'

Welfare - Social Security-Administrat ion

Bureau of Retirement & Su rvivors Insurance Payment Center

Birmingham, Alabama

Dept.-of the Army

U.S. Army Signal Cent®c and School

U.S. Army Satellite Communications Agency

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

General Services Administration

Region 3

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Maintenance Directorate

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Federal Aviation Administration , National

Aviation Facilities Experimental Center

Atlantic City, New Jersey

Dept, of Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

White Shield School

Fort Berthold Agency

Parshall, North Dakota

Federal Aviation Administration , National

Aviation Facilities Experimental Center

Atlantic City, New Jersey

Federal Aviation Administration, National

Aviation Facilities Experimental Center

(Atlantic City, New Jersey

5-17-73

6-7-73

6-7-73

6-15-73

6-21-73

6-25-73

6-25-73

6-25-73

6-25-73

26

A REA OFFICE

CASE N O ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION

53-6147 Obj Request

Denied

40-4647 ' ULP Request

Denied'

32-2862 ULP Request

Denied

20-3858 RO Remanded

to ARD

32-3169 ULP Request

Denied

32-2926 ULP Request

Denied

60-3232 ULP Request

Denied

32-2927 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

280

281

PAGE

282

282

283

284

284

285

32-3012 ULP Request

Denied

286
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

Federal Aviation Administration 6-28-73

Atlantic City, New Jersey

U.S. Naval Station 6-28-73

Newport, Rhode Island

Army & Air Force Exchange Service 7-5-73

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Office of Economic Opportunity 7-9-73

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Electronics Command 7-9-73

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Dept, of Interior 7-9-73

Washington, D.C.

American Federation of Government 7-12-73

Employees, AFL-CIO, and Local 2677,

AFGE, AFL-CIO

Office of Economic Opportunity

Washington, D.C.

Naval Air Rework Facility 7-19-73

Naval Air Station

Pensacola, Florida

Dept, of Health, Education and 7-23-73

Welfare, Bureau of Retirement

& Survivors Insurance Payment Center

Birmingham, Alabama

Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area 7-24-73

Tinker Air Force Base

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Internal Revenue Service 7-24-73

Newark District Office

Newark, New Jersey

Secretary of the Army 8-1-73

Washington, D.C.

27

32-3071 ULP

AREA OFFICE

CASE N O ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE

31-6127 RO

32-3172 RO

22-3703 ULP

32-3164 ULP

22-3693 ULP

22-3702 ULP

42-2233 ULP

40-4707 ULP

63-4363 ULP

32-3213 ULP

Remanded

for Hearing

Remanded for

Hearing

Request

Denied

ACTION

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded to

ARD

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request ^

Denied

Request

Denied

286

287

288

288

289

290

291

292

293

293

294

PAGE

22-3767 ULP Request

Denied

295
R/R No. CASE NAME

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

Dept, of the Navy

Naval Weapons Station

Yorktown, Virginia

Dept, of the Army

U.S. Army Base Command

USARBCO, Okinawa

General Services Administration

Region III, Automated Data Telecommunications Service (ADTS)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dept, of Health, Education and Welfare

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors

Insurance Payment Center

Birmingham, Alabama

Federal Aviation Administration

John F. Kennedy International Airport

Jamaica, New York

Dept, of the Navy

Naval Weapons Station

Yorktown, Virginia

Dept, of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Euless, Texas

Veterans Administration Hospital

East Orange, New Jersey

Dept, of the Navy

Naval Ordnance Laboratory

Silver Spring, Maryland

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic

Institute

Albuquerque, New Mexico

AREA OFFICE

DATE ISSUED CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

8-2-73 22-2881 Obj

8-2-73 22-3840 ULP

8-2-73 20-3986 ULP

8-2-73 40-4708 ULP

8-14-73 30-4984 ULP

. 8-27-73 22-2881 Obj

8-30-73 63-4423 ULP

9-4-73 32-3206 ULP

9-6-73 22-3986 GA

22-4000

9-6-73 63-4406 R0

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

295

296

298

299

299

300

300

301

302

303

28
R/R No. CASE NAME

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic

Institute

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic

Institute

Albuquerque, New Mexico

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO

Social Security Administration

Payment Center

Birmingham, Alabama

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO

Social Security Administration

Payment Center

Birmingham, Alabama

Dept, of Health, Education, and Welfare

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors

Insurance Payment Center

Birmingham, Alabama

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO Social Security

Administration

Birmingham Payment Center

Birmingham, Alabama

American Federation of Government

Employess, AFL-CIO Social Security

Administration

Birmingham Payment Center

Birmingham, Alabama

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Military Ocean Terminal

Bayonne, New Jersey

9-6-73 63-4407 DR Request

Denied

AREA OFFICE

DATE ISSUED CASE N 0 ( S ) ■ TYPE OF CASE ACTION

9-6-73 63-4408 CU Request

Denied

9-12-73 40-4727 CO Request

Denied

9-12-73 40-4717 CO Request

Denied

9-12-73 40-4747 ULP Request

Denied

9-12-73 40-4917 ULP Request

Denied

9-12-73 40-4742 ULP Request

Denied

9-25-73 32-3289 ULP Request

Denied

9-25-73 32-3101 ULP Request

Denied

304

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

310

PAGE

29
R/R No. CASE NAME

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

Federal Aviation Administration

Boston Air Route Traffic

Control Center

Nashua, New Hampshire

Federal Aviation Administration

Great Lakes Region, Airports Division

Des Plaines, Illinois

Dept, of Justice

U.S. Bureau of Prisons

U.S. Penitentiary

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

Veterans Administration Hospital

Fort Meade, South Dakota

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Dept, of Health, Education and Welfare

Social Security Administration

Chicago, Illinois

Dept, of the Air Force

Ellsworth Air Force Base

Rapid City, South Dakota

Dept, of the Army

Headquarters, Fort Hamilton

Brooklyn, New York

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard

Bremerton, Washington

Dept of the Air Force

Ellsworth Air Force Base

Rapid City, South Dakota

322 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, New Hampshire

9-28-73 31-6076 RO Request

Denied

AREA OFFICE

DATE ISSUED CASE N0(S) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION

9-28-73 50-5522 Obj Request

Denied

9-28-73 20-4035 GA Request

Denied

9-28-73 60-2847

60-3309

Obj Request

Denied

10-9-73 32-3285 ULP Request

Denied

10-9-73 50-9708 ULP Request

Denied

11-14-73 60-3412 RO Request

Denied

11-16-73 30-5132 ULP Request

Denied

11-19-73 71-2507 CU Request

Denied

11-28-73 60-3412 RO Request

Denied

11-28-73 31-6198 ULP Request

Denied

311

312

313

314-

315

315

316

317

317

318

319

PAGE

30
R / R N o . CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

American Federation of Government 11-

Employees, Local 1122, AFL-CIO

Social Security Administration

San Francisco Payment Center

San Francisco, California

U.S. Air Force 12-

Andrews Air Force Base

Base Fire Department

Washington, D.C.

Veterans Administration Hospital 12-

Miami, Florida

Veterans Administration Data 12-

Processing Center

National Association of Government 12-

Employees, Local R14-32

Fort Leonard Wood

Waynesville, Missouri

Bureau of Retirement & Survivors 12-

Insurance

Social Security Administration

New York Payment Center

Flushing, New York

Dept of Commerce 12-

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

National Labor Relations Board 12-

Washington, D.C.

National Labor Relations Board 12-

Region 8

Cleveland, Ohio

Dept, of the Army 1-4

Watervliet Arsenal

Watervliet, New York

-30-73

-3-73

-3-73

-3-73

-3-73

-5-73

-10-73

■19-73

-19-73

- I k

31

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

70-4021 ULP Request

Denied

22-3954 ULP Request

Denied

42-2295 Obj Request

Denied

63-4708 DR Request

Granted

62-3712 ULP Request

Denied

30-5138 GA Request

Denied

21-3825 ULP Remanded for

Hearing

50-9546 ULP Request

Denied

53-7029 MISC Request

Withdrawn

35-2885 GA Request

Denied

319

320

320

321

322

323

324

324

325

326
CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

Veterans Administration Hospital

Butler, Pennsylvania

Dept, of Health, Education and

Welfare

New York Payment Center

Flushing, New York

Southeast Exchange Regional

Warehouse

Atlanta Army Depot

Forest Park, Georgia

Warner Robins Air Materiel Area :

Robins Air Force Base

Warner Robins, Georgia

U.S. Dept, of Navy

Naval Ordnance Station

Louisville, Kentucky

Dept, of the Army

Watervliet Arsenal

Watervliet, New York

Dept, of the Navy

Pacific Missile Range

Point Mugu, California

Dept, of the Navy

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

Dept, of the Navy

Naval Air Rework Facility

Jacksonville, Florida

Naval Air Engineering Center

Naval Air Systems Command

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

West Virginia Air National Guard

Charleston Air National Guard Base

Kanawha Airport

Charleston, West Virginia

1-4-74

1-16-74

1-16-74

1-16-74

1-16-74

1-16-74

1-31-74

1-31-74

1-31-74

2-6-74

2-26-74

32

21-3923

30-5150

'40-5173

40-4939

41-3323

35-2892

72-4325

22-3834

42-2342

20-4275

21-3862

AREA OFFICE

CASE N O ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE

RO

GA

R0

GA

ULP

GA

Obj

CU

ULP

ULP

ULP

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

ACTION

Remanded

to ARD

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

to ARD

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

327

328

329

329

330

331

332

333

333

334

335

PAGE
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

Dept, of the Navy 2

Naval Ammunition Depot

Crane, Indiana

General Services Administration 2-

Region V, Communication Division

Federal Aviation Administration 2-

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Electronics Command 2-

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Federal Aviation Administration 2-

Western Region

San Francisco, California

Federal Aviation Administration 2-

Western Region

San Francisco, California

Internal Revenue Service 3-

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Electronics Command 3-

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

General Services Administration 3-

Region VIII Federal Supply Service

Fort Worth, Texas

Dept, of Health, Education and 3-

Welfare, Social Security Administration

Chicago Payment Center

Chicago, Illinois

Office of Economic Opportunity, 3-

Region V

Chicago, 111inois

Office of Economic Opportunity 3-

Region V

Chicago, Illinois

-26-74

-28-74

-28-74

-28-74

-28-74

-28-74

-1-74

-4-74

■6-74

■6-74

■6-74

■13-74

33

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

50-9667 GA

53-6453 r o

22-4058 ULP

32-3317 ULP

70-4067 CO

70-4068 ULP

22-4056 ULP

32-3329 ULP

63-4509 ULP

50-9671 GA

50-9135 ULP

50-9141 ULP

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Granted

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

335

336

337

338

338

339

339

340

341

342

342

343
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

Defense-Air Force Headquarters

U.S. Air Force

Tinker Air Force Base

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Dept, of Air Force

Griffiss Air Force Base

Rome, New York

Health Services Command Headquarters

Fort Sam Houston

San Antonio,. Texas

Veterans Administration

Data Processing Center

Austin, Texas

Dept, of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Rolla, Missouri

Office of Economic Opportunity

Region V

Chicago, Illinois

U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command

Warren, Michigan

Dept, of A m y , Headquarters

U.S. Army Training Center

Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood

Waynesville, Missouri

Office of Economic Opportunity

Region V

Chicago, Illinois

Office of Economic Opportunity

Region V

Chicago, Illinois

U.S. Dept, of Justice

Bureau of Prisons

Washington, D.C.

3-15-74

3-22-74

4-3-74

4-3-74

4-3-74

4-3-74

4-3-74

4-3-74

4-3-74

4-3-74

4-3-74

34

AREA OFFICE

CASE N 0 ( S ) . TYPE OF CASE ACTION

63-4577 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

35-2929

I63-4776

MISC

RO

Request

Granted

Request

Denied

63-4719 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

62-3832 DR Request

Denied

50-8578 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

52-4956 ULP Request

Denied

62-3655 OBJ Request

Denied

50-8300 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

50-9142 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

20-4276 ULP Request

Denied

344

345

345

346

346

347

347

348

349

350

351

PAGE
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

Veterans Administration Hospital

Butler, Pennsylvania

Veterans Administration

Data Processing Center

Austin, Texas

Naval Missile Center 7

Point Mugu, California

National Federation of Federal

Employees

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command

St. Louis, Missouri

Charleston Naval Shipyard

Charleston, South Carolina

Internal Revenue Servic e

Southeast Region

Chamblee, Georgia

U.S. Marshals Service

District of Columbia

Washington, D.C.

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, D.C.

Airways Facility Sector

Federal Aviation Administration

Denver, Colorado

Veterans Administration Research

Hospital

Chicago, Illinois

U.S. Army Adjutant General

Publications Center

St. Louis, Missouri

4-23-74

4-24-74

4-30-74

4-30-74

4-30-74

4-30-74

5-14-74

5-14-74

5-14-74

5-14-74

5-31-74

5-31-74

35

21-3923

63-4760

72-4379

20-4300

62-3092

40-4978

40-5246

22-5174

22-5142

61-2274

50-11052

62-3838

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO(S). TYPE OF CASE

OBJ

ULP

OBJ

ULP

OBJ

ULP

ULP

RO

GA

DR

R0

ULP

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

ACTION

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

■Remanded

to ARD

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

351

352

352

353

353

354

355

356

356

357

358

358

PAGE
R/R NO. CASE NAME

37.9

7 '380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

Department of the Army

U.S. Dependents School

European Area

American Federation of Government

Employees, Local 987, AFL-CIO

Warner Robins, Georgia

Office of Economic Opportunity

Washington, D.C.

Department of Army

Rock Island Arsenal

Headquarters and Installation

Support Activity

Rock Island, Illinois

Defense Mapping Agency

Topographic Center

Providence Office

West Warwick, Rhode Island

Pacific Southwest Forest.and

Range Experiment Station

Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Berkeley, California

Department of Army

U.S. Army Training Center

Fort Leonard 'Wood

Waynesville, Missouri

Office of Economic Opportunity

Washington, D.C.

Headquarters, U.S. Air Force

Tinker Air Force Base

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Air Engineering Center

Naval Air Support Activity

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

DATE ISSUED

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

5-31-74

6-18-74

6-18-74

6-18-74

6-18-74

6-18-74

6-18-74

7-8-74

7-8-74

7-8-74

22-3988 OBJ Request

Denied

40-5215 ULP Request

Denied

22-5178 GA Request

22-5189 Denied

50-9668 OBJ Request

Denied

31-7566 GA Request

Denied

70-4033 ULP Request

Denied

62-3831 OBJ- Request

Denied

22-5216 GA Request

Granted

63-4765 , ULP Request

Denied

20-4311 ULP Request

Denied

359

360

360

361

362

363

363

364

365

365

36
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

American Federation of Government

Employees, Local 1157, AFL-CIO

Oakland, California

Veterans Administration Center

Bath, New York

Department of Army

Baltimore District Corps

of Engineers

Baltimore, Maryland

Department of the Army

Rock Island Arsenal Headquarters

U.S. Army Armament Command

Rock Island, Illinois

Department of Navy

Naval Air Rework Facility

Norfolk, Virginia

National Weather Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

Caribou, Maine

Department of Health, Education and

Welfare

Social Security Administration

Baltimore, Maryland

National Weather Service

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Department of Navy

National Naval Medical Center

Bethesda, Maryland

Transportation Federal Aviation Admin.

Airways Facilities Sector

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Treasury Disbursing Center

Austin, Texas

7-8-74

7-8-74

7-26-74

7-26-74

7-26-74

7-26-74

8-22-74

8-22-74

8-22-74

8-22-74

8-22-74

37

70-4178

35-3125

22-5152

50-11059

22-5272

31-7565

22-5271

21-3997

22-5251

r

63-4904

63-4816

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S)

ULP Request

Denied

TYPE OF CASE ACTION

RO Remanded

to ARD

ULP Request

Denied

OBJ Request

Denied

GA Request

Denied

GA Request

Denied

ULP Remanded1

for Hearing

GA Request

Deni ed

GA Request

Deni ed

ULP Request

Denied

ULP Request

Denied

366

367

368

368:

369'

3701

I ■

371

372-

372-

373-

37/*

PAGE
CASE NAME

U.S Coast Guard Base

Seattle, Washington

Dept of the Air Force

Headquarters, Oklahoma City Air

Materiel Area

Tinker Air Force Base

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Department of the Army, Headquarters

U.S. Army Training Center Engineer

and Fort Leonard Wood

Waynesville, Missouri

U.S. Navy, Naval Air

“Station, Fifth Naval District

Norfolk, Virginia

U.S. Air Force

Air Force Finance and

Accounting Center

Denver, Colorado

National Guard Bureau

Arkansa Air National Guard

189 Tac Recon GP (RTU)

Jacksonville, Arkansas

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Ouachita National Forest

Hot Springs, Arkansas

U.S. Army Electronics Command

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

U.S. Air Force, Billeting Fund

Patrick Air Force Base

Cocoa, Florida

DATE ISSUED

8-22-74

8-22-74

8-22-74

8-22-74

8-22-74

8-22-74

8-27-74

8-30-74

8-30-74

38

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO. (S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

71-2872 ULP

63-4831 AC

62-3655 OBJ

22-5256 ULP

61-2315 ULP

64-2290 GA

64-2279 OBJ

32-3329 ULP

42-2509 RO

Reques t

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Reques t

Denied

Reques t

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

375

375

376

377

377

378

379

380

381
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

409

410

.411

412

413

414

415

416

417

Council of Customs Locals 8-30-74

American Federation of Government

Employees

Locals 2652, 2768, and 2899, AFL-CIO 

New York, New York

Department of the Navy 8-30-74

Naval Weapons Center 

China Lake, California

Department of Commerce 8-30-74

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 

Kings Point, New York

Department of Labor 8-30-74

Labor Management Services 

Administration, Dallas Area Office 

Dallas, Texas

U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) 9-13-74

Forest Service

Hot Springs, Arkansas

Social Security Administration 9-13-74

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors 

Insurance 

Mid-American Program .Center 

Kansas City, Missouri

U.S. Department of Army 9-13-74

Picatinny Arsenal 

Dover, N.J.

Council of Customs Locals 9-20-74

American Federation of Government 

Employees (AFGE)

Locals 2652, 2768, and 2899, AFL-CIO 

New York, New York

U.S. Department of Agriculture 9-26-74

Farmers Home Administration 

Huron, South Dakota

39

30-5569 ULP Request

Deni ed

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION

72-4678 ULP Request

Deni ed

30-5455 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

Undocketed MISC Request

Denied

64-2340 ' ULP Request

Denied.

60-3623 ULP Request

Denied

32-3528 OBJ Request

Denied

30-5569 CO ' Request

Denied

382

382

383

384

384

385

386 

386

PAGE

60-3700 ULP Request

Denied

387
418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

R/R No. CASE NAME

Department of the Navy

U.S. Naval Station

Pearl Harbor

Honolulu, Hawaii

Department of the Air Force

McClellan Air Force Base

Sacramento, California

Federal Aviation Administration

National Aviation Facilities

Experimental Center

Atlantic City, New Jersey

Internal Revenue Service

Greensboro District Office

Greensboro, North Carolina

U.S. Army Aeronautical Depot

Maintenance Center

Corpus Christi, Texas

Department of Commerce

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy

Kings Point", New York

Veterans Administration Hospital

LaJolla, California

The Adjutant General

State of Illinois

Illinois National Guard

Springfield, Illinois

National Guard Bureau

Washington, D.C.

Internal Revenue Service

Chamblee Service Center

Chamblee, Georgia

Department of the Army

White Sands Missile Range

Las Cruces, New Mexico

DATE ISSUED

9-26-74

9-27-74

9-27-74

9-27-74

9-27-74

10-3-74

10-3-74 •

10-10-74

10-10-74

10-10-74

40

AREA OFFICE

CASE N O . ( S ) TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

73-558 R0

70-4232 GA

32-3615 ULP

40-5314 GA

63-4887 ULP

30-5455 ULP

72-4646 ULP

50-9685 ULP

50-9686

40-5335 ULP

63-4930 ULP

Request

Denied

Request

Granted

Request

Denied

Request

Granted

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded for

Hearing

Remanded for

Hearing

R equest^

Denied

388

388

389

390

391

391

392

392

393

393
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

San Francisco Naval Public Works Center 10-15-74

San Francisco, California

Internal Revenue Service 10-15-74

Austin Service Center

Austin, Texas

Department of Agriculture 10-25-74

Office £>f Investigation

Temple, Texas

Naval Air Rework Facility 10-25-74

Pensacola, Florida

and

Secretary of the Navy

Washington, D.C.

Tobacco Division 10-25-74

Agricultural Marketing Service

Glasgow, Kentucky

F.ederal Aviation Administration 10-25-74

National Aviation Facilities

Experimental Center

Atlantic City, New. Jersey

U.S. Army Engineer <’USAE) 10-25-74

Waterways Experiment Station

Vicksburg, Mississippi

U.Ss1 Department of Agriculture 10-25-74

Forest Servic

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests

Rfissellville, Arkansas

Federal Aviation Administration 10-31-74

John F. Kennedy International Airport

Jamaica, New York

Veterans Administration Center 10-31-74

Mountain Home, Tennessee

Keesler Technical Training Center 10-31-74

Keesler Air Force Base

Biloxi, Mississippi

41

70-4328

70-4309

63-4995

63-4992

42-2529

41-3686

32-3649

41-3599

64-2268

30-5640

41-3624

41-3673

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S)

RO Request

Denied

GA Reques t

Granted

TYPE OF CASE ACTION

RO Request

Denied

ULP Remanded for

Hearing

ULP Request

Denied

ULP Request

Denied

RO Remanded for

Hearing'

OBJ Request

Denied

ULP Request

Denied

GA Request

Denied

ULP Request

Denied

394

395

396

397

.398

399

399

400

401

402

403

PAGE
R/R No. CASE NAME

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

Department of the Navy

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard

Honolulu, Hawaii

U.S. Information Agency

Broadcasting Service

Voice of America (VOA)

New York, New York

Office of Economic Opportunity

Region IX

San Francisco, California

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John F. Kennedy Space Center

Kennedy Space Center,

Orlando, Florida

Department of the Navy

Navy Exchange

U.S. Naval Air Station

Alameda, California

Office of Economic Opportunity (0E0)

Local 2677

National Council of OEO Locals

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFLrCIO

Washington, D.C.

Department of the Air Force

McClellan Air Force Base

Sacramento, California

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C.

Department of the Army

Indiana Army Ammunition Plant

Charlestown, Indiana

Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare, Social Security Administration

San Francisco, California

U.S. Army Training Aids

Management Agency

Newport News, Virginia

DATE ISSUED

11-11-74

11-11-74

11-11-74

11-11-74

11-25-74

11-25-74

11-25-74

11-27-74

11-27-74

12-13-74

12-13-74

42

73-568

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION

ULP Request

Denied

404

PAGE

30-5579 RO Request

Denied

404

70-4236 GA Request

Denied

405

42-2497 GA Request

Denied

405

70-4283 GA Request

Granted

406

22-5386 GA Request

Denied

407

70-4329 GA Request

Denied

407

22-5371 ULP Request

Denied

408

50-11018 ULP Request

Denied

409

70-4278 ULP Request

Denied

410

22-5388 RO Request

Denied

411
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

450

451

452

453

. 454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

Headquarters, Military Traffic Management 12-13-74

and Terminal Service 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture 12-13-74

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station 

Berkeley, California

Aberdeen Proving Ground 12-18-74

Aberdeen, Maryland.

Department of Transportation 12-19-74

Federal Highway. Administration 

Vancouver, Washington

Rureau of the Mint 12-19-74

U.S. Assay Office

San Francisco, California

Department of Air Force 12-24-74

Ellsworth Air Force Base 

Rapid City, South Dakota

General Services Administration 12-24-74

Region 5, Federal Supply Service 

Quality Control Division 

Chicago, Illinois

U.S. Department of Commerce 12-24-74

Domestic and International Business 

Administration, Phoenix District

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 12-24-74

Honolulu, Hawaii

Bureau of the Mint 12-24-74

U.S. Assay Office

San Francisco, California

Long Beach Naval Shipyard 1-3-75

Long Beach, California

Department of the Army 1-3-75

U.S. Army Materiel Command 

Watervliet Arsenal 

Watervliet, New York

Department of the Navy 1-3-75

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard- • ------------

Honolulu, Hawaii

43

22-5343

70-4254

22-5400

71-3009

70-4319

60-3412

52-5716

72-4749

73-573 

70-4320

72-4730

35-3233

73^574

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE 

GA

GA

ULP 

. ULP

ULP

RO

RO

RA

ULP

ULP

ULP

GA

ULP

Reques t 

Denied

ACTION

Request

Denied

Reques t 

Granted

Reques t 

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded 

to ARD

Remanded 

for Hearing

Reques t 

Denied

Reques t 

Denied

Reques t 

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

411

412

413

413

414

415

416

416

417

418

418

419

420

PAGE
R/R Wo. CASE NAME

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

Social Security Administration

Mid-America Program Center

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance

(BRSI)

Kansas City, Missouri

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

Western Program Center

Social Security Administration

San Francisco, California

Internal Revenue Service District,

Columbia, South Carolina

U.S. Civil Service Commission

Appeals Review Board

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Air Force

Grand Forks Air Force Base

Grand Forks, North Dakota

U.S. Army Engineer

Division, Pacific Ocean

Fort Armstrong

Honolulu, Hawaii

Department of the Navy

Naval Air Systems Command

Bethpage, New York

U.S. Department of Health, Education and

Welfare, Social Security Administration

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Office of Economic Opportunity

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Army

Picatinny Arsenal

Dover, New Jersey

U.S. Department of the Air Force

Washington, D.C.

Naval Air Rework Facility

Naval Air Station

Jacksonville, Florida

AREA OFFICE

DATE ISSUED CASE NO. (S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION

1-3-75 60-3836 ULP Request

Denied

1-13-75 70-4291 ULP Request

Denied

1-23-75 40-5339 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

1-23-75 22-5519 ULP Request

Denied

1-23-75 60-3747 RO Remanded

for Hearing

1-30-75 73-562 OBJ Request

Denied

1-30-75 30-5645 GA Request

Denied

1-30-75 52-5578 RO Request

Denied

1-30-75 22-5512 GA Request

Granted

1-30-75 32-3679 ULP Request

Denied

2-3-75 22-5574 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

2-3-75 42-2504 OBJ Remanded

for Hearing

420

421

422

422

423

424

424

425

426

427

428

429

PAGE

44
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

U.S. Department of the Air Force

Westover Air Force Base

Chicopee, Massachusetts

Department of Health, Education and

Welfare, Social Security Admin.

Bureau of Data Processing

Albuquerque Data Operations Center

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

U. S. Public Health Hospital

Brighton, Massacusetts

Internal Revenue Service

Los Angeles District

Los Angeles, California

Massachusetts Army National Guard

Boston, Massachusetts

Headquarters, Army and Air Force

Exchange Service

Ohio Valley Exchange Region

Louisville, Kentucky

General Services Administration

Region 3, Washington, D.C.

Internal Revenue Service

Omaha District Office

Omaha, Nebraska

Federal Aviation Administration

Sector 19, Greer, South Carolina

Federal Aviation Administration

Sector 31, Montgomery, Alabama

Veterans Administration Hospital

Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

2-3-75

2-7-75

2-24-75

2-24-75

2-24-75

2-28-75

2-28-75

2-28-75

2-28-75

2-28-75

2-28-75

3-7-75

45

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

31-8619 RO Request

Denied

63-4833 OBJ Request

Denied

22-5532 ULP Request

Denied

31-8606

72-4736

ULP

)

OBJ

Reques t

Denied

Request

Denied

31-8853 RO Request

Denied

50-11136 ULP Request

Denied

22-5530 GA Request

Denied

60-3722 GA Request

Denied

40-5858 RO Request

Denied

40-5859 RO Request

Denied

31-8567 OBJ Request

Denied

430

430

431

431

432'

432

433

434

435

436

436

437
R/R No. CASE NAME

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

U.S. Department of Navy

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, Virginia

Defense Supply Agency

Defense Construction

Supply Center

Columbus, Ohio

Department of the Army

Rock Island Arsenal Headquarters

U.S. Army Armament Command

Rock Island, Illinois

U.S. Naval Air Station, North Island

San Diego, California •

General Services Administration

Region 2, New York

National Archives and Records Service

General Services Administration

Washington, D.C.

National Labor Relations Board 5

Denver, Colorado Regional Office

and

National Labor Relations Board

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Army

U.S.' Army Air Defense Center

and Fort Bliss

El Paso, Texas

St. Lawrence Seaway

Development Corporation

Massena, New York

Department of the Navy

Naval Ammunition Depot

Crane, Indiana

DATE ISSUED 

3-7-75 22-5387

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE

ULP Remanded

for Hearing

ACTION

3-11-75 53-7387 GA Request

Granted

3-11-75 50-11059 OBJ Request

Denied

3-27-75 71-3033 ULP Request

Denied

3-27-75 30-5109 OBJ Request

Denied

3-28-75 22-5713 GA Request

Denied

3-28-75 61-2289 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

3-28-75 63-4989 OBJ Request

Denied

3-27-75 35-3248 ULP Request

Denied

4-3-75 50-9667 GA Remanded to

ARD

437

438

438

439

439

440

441

442

442

443

PAGE

46
k/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 4-22-75

Bremerton, Washington

U.S. Army Electronics Command 4-22-75

Fort Monmouth

Red Bank, New Jersey

Pennsylvania Army and 4-22-75

Air National Guard

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Veterans Administration Center 4-22-75

Bath, New York

Veterans Administration Center 4-22-75

Bath, New York

American Federation of Government 4-22-75

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1909

Columbia, South Carolina

Headquarters, 31st Combat Support 4-30-75

Group

Homestead Air Force Base

Homestead, Florida

U.S. Department of Agriculture 5-7-75

National Finance Center

New Orleans, Louisiana

Department of Air Force 5-7-75

K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base

Gwinn, Michigan

Department of the Navy 5-7-75

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard

Honolulu, Hawaii

U.S. Dependents School 5-7-75

European Area (Directorate)

APO New York

Headquarters, 31st Combat 5-7-75

Support Group, Tactical Air

Command (TAC)

Homestead, Florida

47

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

71-3246 ULP

32-3673 ULP

20-4549 ULP

35-3249 ULP

35-3254 ULP

40-5755 ULP

42-2575 ULP

64-2441 ULP

52-5862 ULP

73-587 ULP

22-5571 ULP

42-2573 ULP

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Reques t

Denied

Request

Denied -

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Request

Denied

Remanded

for Hearing

444

444

445

445

446

446

447

447

• 448

448

449

449
R/R No. CASE NAME

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

Veterans Administration Hospital 

Allen Park, Michigan

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Oakland Air Route Traffic 

Control Center 

Fremont, California

Department of Commerce 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 

Kings Point, New York

U.S. Department of the Army 

Army Aeronautical Depot 

Maintenance Center 

Corpus Christi, Texas

U.S. Department of the Army 

U.S. Army Aeronautical Depot 

Maintenance Center 

Corpus Christi, Texas

Veterans Administration Hospital 

New Orleans, Louisiana

U.S. Navy

Naval Air Rework Facility 

Naval Air Station 

Alameda, California

Corpus Christi Army Depot 

Corpus Christi, Texas

U.S. Army Air Defense Center 

Fort Bliss 

El Paso, Texas

Veterans Administration 

Data Processing Center 

Austin, Texas

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Detroit Area Office 

Detroit, Michigan

DATE ISSUED

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION

5-15-75 52-5381 ULP Reques t 

Denied

5-19-75 70-4463 ULP Request

Denied

5-19-75 30-5585 ' ULP Reques t 

Denied

5-19-75 63-5033 GA Reques t 

Granted

5-19-75 63-5049 GA Request

Granted

5-29-75 64-2513 ULP Request

Denied

6-3-75 70-4582 RO Request

Denied

6-4-75 63-5368 ULP Reques t 

Denied

6-4-75 63-5355 ULP Request

Denied

6-4-75 63-5276

et al

ULP Request

Denied

6-9-75 52-5817 ULP Request

Denied

450

450

451

452

453

454

454

455

455

456

456

PAGE

48
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

U.S. Air Force 6-9-75

31st Combat Support Group 

Homestead. Air Force Base 

Tactical Air Command (TAC)

Homestead, Florida

Veterans Administration 

Data Processing Center 

Austin, Texas

Internal Revenue Service 

Austin Service Center 

Austin, Texas

General Services Administration 6-19-75

Federal Supply Service 

Washington, D.C.

Arizona National Guard 6-19-75

Air National Guard 

Sky Harbor Airport 

Phoenix, Arizona

Automated Logistics Management 6-19-75

Systems Agency 

St. Louis, Missouri

Social Security Administration 6-23-75

Bureau of District Office Operations 

Boston, Region 

Boston, Massachusetts

National Treasury Employees Union 6-24-75

(Internal Revenue Service)

Washington, D.C.

Defense Supply Agency 6-24-75

Defense Industrial Plant 

Equipment Center 

Memphis, Tennessee

Veterans Administration Center 6-24-75

Bath, New York

6-9-75

6-10-75

49

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

42-2644 ULP Request

Denied

63-5349 ULP Request

63-5357 Denied

63-5065 ULP Remanded

for Hearing

22-5725 UL? Request

Denied

72-4777 ULP Request

Denied

62-4087 ULP Request

Denied

31-8590 GA Request

Granted

22-5976 ULP Reques.t

Denied

41-3921 ULP Request

Denied

35-3125 RO Request

Denied

457

457

458

458

459

460

460

461

462

463
R/R No. CASE NAME DATE ISSUED

530

531

532

533

Naval Aerospace and Regional Medical 6-24-75

Center

Naval Aerospace Medical Laboratory

Naval Aerospace Medical Institute,

Pensacola, Florida

U.S. Air Force, Headquarters 6-30-75

31st Combat Support Group

Tactical Support Command (TAC)

Homestead Air Force Base

Homestead, Florida

Internal Revenue Service 6-30-75

Philadelphia Service Center

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

U.S. Air Force, 2578th Group 6-30-75

Ellington,Air Force Base

Houston, Texas

50

AREA OFFICE

CASE NO.(S) TYPE OF CASE ACTION PAGE

42-2712 RA

42-2713

42-2714

42-2649 ULP Request

Denied

20-4723 GA Request

Granted

Remanded

for Hearing

463

464'

465

63-5284 ULP Request

Denied

466
ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF RULINGS ON REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY */

TITLE R/R NO(S).

Agriculture, Department of

-- Agricultural Marketing Service,

Tobacco Division 432

-- Agricultural Quarantine Inspection

Division 188

-- Agricultural Reserch Service,

Northern Marketing and Nutrition 

Research Division 207

-- Agricultural Stablization and

Conservation Service 270

-- Consumer and Marketing Service 49

-- Farmers Home Administration 417

-- Forest Service

-- Ouachita National Forest 406, 413

-- Ozark-St. Francis National Forests 435

-- Pacific Southwest Forest and Range

Experimental Station 384, 451

-- Investigation, Office of

-- National. Finance Center

-- Soil Conservation Service

Air Force, Department of

-- Aeronautical Systems Division,

Wright-Patterson AFB

-- Air Force Academy 

-- Air Force Base

430

504

70

249, 254, 

261, 272

160

TITLE R/R N0(S).

Air Force, Department of (cont.)

-- Andrews, Base Fire Dept. 324

-- Dobbins, Air Technical

Detachment 139

-- Ellington 533

-- Ellsworth 318, 321, 455

-- Grand Forks 467

-- 804th Combat Support ■, ,

Group 262

-- Griffis 357

-- Hill 113, 151

-- Homestead

31st Combat Support Group, HQ 503, 508,

520, 531

-- Keesler

Technical Training Center

-- Kirtland

Special Weapons Center

11, 248, 

269, 438

251

-- Lowry

Air Training Command, Technical 

Training Center 183

-- McClellan

— Minot 

-- Moody

419, 445

125

181

*/ To facilitate reference, listings in this Table contain 

case captions see Numerical Table of Cases.

only key words in the case title. For complete and official

51
-- 2024th Communications

Squadron 175

-- Norton 51

-- Patrick 148

-- Robins

-- Warner Robins Air Materiel Area 336

-- AFGE, Local 987 380

-- Sawyer, K.I. 505

-- Scott

Military Airlift Command, HQ 85

-- Tinker 168

— Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area 246,290

356.387.401

-- Travis 87

-- Tyndall

4756th Air Force Base Group, HQ 267

w- Westover 475

-- Wright-Patterson

Aeronautical Systems Division 249,254

261,272

— Air Materiel Area

-- Robins AFB 336

-- Tinker AFB 246,290

356.387.401

TITLE R/R N O ( S ) .

52

Air Technician Detachment,

Dobbins AFB 139

Air Training Command, Technical

Training Center, Lowry AFB 183

Base Fire Department, Andrews AFB 324

Combat Support Group

-- 804th, Grand Forks AFB 262

-- 31st (TAC), Homestead AFB 503,508

520,531

Electronics System Division

Hanscom Field 63,130

Finance and Accounting Center 404

4756th AFB Group, HQ, Tyndall AFB 267

Hanscom Field, L.G. 63,130

Military Airlift Command, HQ,

Scott AFB 85

910th Tactical Air Support

Group (AFRES)

Youngstown Municipal Airport 1

Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area, HQ,

Tinker AFB 246,290,356

387,401

Special Weapons Center,

Kirtland AFB 251

Technical Training Center

-- Keesler AFB 11,248

269,438

TITLE R/R N0(S).
TITLE R/R N O ( S ) .

Technical Training Center (Cont.)

-- Lowry AFB 183

-- 31st Combat Support Group

(TAC), HQ, Homestead AFB 503,508

520,531

-- 2578th Group, Ellington AFB 533

-- 2024th Communications Squadron,

Moody AFB 175

-- Warner Robins Air Materiel Area

-- AFGE, Local 987 380

-- Robins AFB 336

-- Washington, D.C. 473

-- Youngstown Municipal Airport

910th Tactical Air Support

Group 1

Air Rework Facility-- See Navy

Air Route Traffic Control Center-- See

Transportation, Federal Aviation

Air Systems Command-- See Navy

Air Traffic Control Tower-- See

Transportation, Federal Aviation

Airways Facility Sector-- See

Transportation, Federal Aviation

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO 287,305

306,308

309

TITLE R/R N0(S).

Customs Locals, Council of

District 11 of HUD Council

of.Locals

Local

-- 987, Robins AFB

--,1122, SSA Payment Center,

San Francisco, Calif.

— 1157, Army, Oakland, Calif.

— 1909, Fort Jackson, S.C.

-- 2206, SSA, Birmingham, Ala.

-- 2652, Customs Service,

New York, N.Y.

-- 2677, Office of Economic

Opportunity Washington, D.C.

-- 2768, Customs Service,

New York, N.Y.

-- 2899, Customs Service

New York, N.Y.

National Council of OEO Locals

and Air Force Exchange Service

Fort Jackson

Fort Monmouth

Fort Rucker

409.416

206

380

323

389

502

305,306

308,309

409.416

287,444-

409.416

409.416

444

35

263,283

211'
Kirtland AFB 140

MacDill AFB 156

Ohio Valley Exchange Region 481

Patrick AFB 408

Randolph AFB 29

Sandia Area Exchange _^140

Southeast Exchange Region

Warehouse 271

-- Atlanta Army Depot 335

-- Fort Bragg 271

, Department

Aberdeen Proving Ground 243,452 

Adjutant General

Publication Center 378

Advanced Ballistic Missle

Defense,Agency 215

Aeronautical Depot, Maintenance

Center 189,422

512,513

516

Air Defense Center 494,517-.

Ammunition Plant, Indiana 447

Armament Command, Rock Island

Arsenal 392,489

Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory,

Electronics Commarl 4

Automated Logistics Management

Systems Agency 525

TITLE R/R NO(S).

-- Aviation Detachment,

Electronics Command 165

-- Aviation Systems Command 371

— Base Command, USARBCO 294

-- Civilian Personnel Field Office,

Electronics Command 114

-- Combat Development Command 252

-- Communications Systems 227

-- Comptroller Directorate,

Tooele Depot 184

-- Corps of Engineers

-- Baltimore District 391

-- Fort Armstrong 468

-- Fort Belvoir 120

-- Little Rock District, Pine

Bluff Resident Office 149

-- Philadelphia District,

Customs House 178

-- St. Louis District 268

-- St. Paul 43

-- Waterways Experiment 232,434 

Station

-- Defense Communications Agency 143 

-- Dependents School, European Area

-- Directorate 250,507

— Torrejon, Spain 379

-- 81st Army Command 102

TITLE R/R N0(S).
Electronics Command

-- Fort Monmouth

-- Atmospheric Sciences 

Labora tory

-- Aviation Detachment

-- Civilian Personnel 

Field Office

-- Maintenance Directorate

-- Medical Department Activities

-- Procurement and Production 

Directorate

Fort

-- Armstrong, Army Engineer 

Division

-- Belvoir, Army Engineer Center 

Center

-- Bliss, Air Defense Center

-- Campbell

-- Eustis, Army Transportation 

Center

-- Hamilton

-- Jackson

-- AFGE, Local 1909 

-- Laundry Facility

TITLE

105,173,182

208,214,234

285,310,316

347,351,407

498

4

165

114

276

133

131

468

120

494,517

155

65,449

319

502

R/R NO.(S),

159

-- Leonard Wood

-- NAGE, Local R14-32 327

-- Training Center, Engineer 363,385

402

-- McClellan, School Training Center 171

-- McPherson, HQ, Third Army 171

-- Monmouth

-- Combat Development Command 252

-- Communications Systems 227

-- Defense Communications Agency 143

-- Electronics Command 4,105,131,133

.165,173,182 

208,214,234 

' 276,285,310 

316,347,351 

407,498

TITLE R/R NO.(S)

-- Patterson Army Hospital - 75

-- Satellite Communications Agency 265,274

-- Signal Center and School 34,134,264

274

-- Sam Houston 358

Frankford Arsenal 45,46

Health Services Command 358

Indiana Army Ammunition Plant 447

Materials and Mechanics Research

Center 238,241
Materiel Command 461

Medical Corps, Tripler Medical

Center 258

Medical Department Activities,

Electronics Command 133

Military Academy 3

Military Ocean Terminal 141,240

266,311

Military Traffic Management

and Terminal Service 450

Natick Laboratories 180,187

212

Patterson Army Hospital 75

Picatinny Arsenal 55,89,98

196,415,472

Publications Center, Adjutant

General 378

Pueblo Depot 8

Red Hivfir Depot 10,91

Rock Island Arsenal

— Armament Command 392,489

-- Installation Support

Activity 382

Ryukyu Island 154

Sacramento Depot 32

Satellite Communications

Agency 265,274

TITLE R/R NO(S).

-- Secretary of the Army 292

-- Signal Center and School 34,134,264

274

-- Tank Automotive Command 362

-- Third Army Headquarters 171

-- Tooele Depot 23

-- Comptroller Directorate 184

/

-- Training Aids Management Agency 449

-- Training Center

-- Fort Jackson 159

-- Fort Leonard Wood 363,385,402

-- Fort McClellan 171

-- Transportation Center 65

-- Tripler Medical Center 258

— Vint Hill Farms Station 210

-- Watervliet Arsenal 332,330

-- Waterways Experiment Station 232,434

-- Weapons Command 22

-- White Sands Missle Range 57,427

Aviation Supply Office 72

Civil Service Commission, Appeals Review

Board 446

Coast Guard 400

Combat Support Group-- See Air Force

TITLE ... R/R N0(S).
Commerce, Department of

-- Domestic and International

Business Administration 457

-- Merchant Marine Academy 411,423

511

-- National Weather Service

-- Caribou, Maine 394

-- El Paso, Texas 256

-- Pittsburgh, Pa. 329,396

-- San Juan, P.R. 117

-- Washington, D.C. 236

Corps of Engineers-- See Army

Customs, Bureau of---See Treasury

Defense Contract Administration--See

Defense, Department of

Defense, Department of

-- Defense Contract Administration

-- Boston Service Region 244

-- Milwaukee Service

District 231

-- Rochester Service

District 79

-- Defense Mapping Agency,

Topographic Center 383

-- Defense Supply Agency

-- Boston, Mass. 86

-- Construction Supply Center 488

TITLE R/R NO(S).

-- Defense Depot

-- Memphis, Tenn. 179

-- Tracy, Calif. 69,197

-- Defense Industrial Plant

Equipment Center 528

-- Defense Personnel Support Center 14

Defense Depot-- See Defense, Department of

Defense Supply Agency-- See Defense, Department of

Dependents Schools, European Area-- See Army

Economic Opportunity, Office of

-- AFGE, Local 2677 and National Council

of 0E0 Locals 444

-- Chicago, 111. 260,354,355

361,364,365 .

-- San Francisco, Calif. 441

-- Washington, D.C. . 284,381,386

471

Electronics Command-- See Army

Exchange-- See Navy

Federal Aviation Administration-- See Transportation

Federal Labor Relations Council 218

Federal Supply Service-- See General Services

Forest Service--See Agriculture

Fort-- See Army and Air Force Exchange or Army,

Department of

TITLE R/R NO(S).
TITLE R/R NO(S). 

‘ General Services Administration

-- Cincinnati, Ohio ' 345

-- Cleveland, Ohio 126 

-- Federal Supply Service

-- Chicago, 111. 456

-- Fort Worth, Tex. 352 

--.Raritan, N.J.

-- Washington, D.C. 523

-- Memphis, Tenn. 25

-- National Archives and

Records Service 492

-- New York, N.Y. 491

-- Philadelphia, Pa.

-- ADTS 295

-- Communications Division 199

-- Trenton, N.J. 177

-- Washington, D.C. 201,275

482

Geological Survey-- See Interior

Health,' Education and Welfare, Department of

-- Public Health Service

-- Health Services and Mental

Health Administration 192

-- Hospitals

HEW, Department of (cont.)

-- Brighton, Mass.

-- San Francisco, Calif.

-- Indian Health, Division of 

Intermountain Indian School 

Health Center

-- Indian Hospital,

Albuquerque, New Mexico

— Social Security Administration

— Baltimore, Md.

-- Data Processing, Bureau of

-- District Office Operations,

Bureau of

-- District Offices

-- Albany, N.Y.

-- Grand Rapids, Mich.

-- Lawton, Okla

-- Regional Offices

— Chicago, 111.

-- New York, N.Y.

-- Retirement and Survivors Insurance

-- Payment Centers

-- Birmingham, Ala.

— Chicago, 111.

TITLE

478

195

19

61,219,221

395

476

526

7

470

230

317 

253,257 

, Bureau of

273,289

296,307

145,216

217,226

353

R/R N0(S).

58
Retirement and Survivors (Cont.)

-- Flushing, N.Y. 328,334

-- San Francisco, Calif. 323

-- Program Centers

-- Mid-American, Kansas City

Kansas City, Mo. 414,463

-- Western, San Francisco,

Calif, 448,464

Hospital-- See Health, Education and Welfare

Public Health Service or Veterans Admin.

Housing and Urban Development,

Department of

-- Boston, Mass. 124

-- Council of Locals, AFGE 206

-- Detroit, Mich. 191,519

-- Portland, Oreg. 228

-- St. Louis, Mo. Ill

Human Development Corporation 229 

Information Agency, U.S.

-- Broadcasting Service 440

-- Washington, D.C. 136 

Interior, Department of 

-- Geological Survey

— Pacific Coast Center 112

— Rolla, Mo. 360

TITLE . R/R NO(S).

-- Indian Affairs, Bureau of

-- Educational Employees,

NCBIAE-NEA 163

-- Southwestern Indian

Polytechnic Institute 302,303

304

-- Fort Berthold Agency,

White Shield School 278

-- Land Management, Bureau of

-- Riverside District and

Land Office 255

-- Sacramento, Calif. 58

-- National Park Service, Kennedy Center

for Performing Arts 259

-- Washington, D.C. _ 286

Internal Revenue Service--See Treasury

Justice, Department of

-- Immigration and Naturalization

Service 242

-- Marshals Service, U 0S„ 374

-- Prisons, Bureau of

-- Lewisburg, Pa. 314

-- Washington, D.C. 366

Kaiserlautern American High School 54

TITLE R/R N0(S).
Kennedy, John F.

-- Center for the Performing Arts,

National Park Service 259

-- International Airport,

Federal Aviation Admin. 297,436

-- Space Center, NASA 166,442

Labor, Department of

— Dallas, Tex. 412 

Land Management-- See Interior

Marine Corps Supply Center-- See Navy

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

— Audit Division 18

-- Kennedy Space Center 166,442

National Association of Government 

Employees, Local R14-32 327

National Federation of Federal 

Employees 370

National Guard

-- Arizona Air National 524

-- Arkansas

-- Air National 405

-- National Guard 20

-- Colorado Air National 14

-- Illinois National 425

— Massachusetts Army National 480

TITLE R/R NO(S).

National Guard (Cont.)

-- National Guard Bureau 425

-- New Hampshire Air National

-- Concord 84

-- Portsmouth 138

-- Pennsylvania Army ^nd

Air National 499

-- South Carolina Air National 67

-- West Virginia Air National 343

National Labor Relations Board

-- Cleveland, Ohio 331

-- Denver, Colo. 493

-- Kansas City, Mo. 36,90

-- Washington, D.C. 73,330,493

National Treasury Employees Union 527

National Weather Service-- See Commerce

Navy> Department of

-- Aerospace and Regional Medical

Center, Institute, Laboratory 530

-- Air Engineering Center 223,342

388

-- Air Rework Facility

-- Alameda, Calif. 515

-- Jacksonville, Fla. 121,341

474

TITLE ~ -R/R NO(S-).
TITLE R/R NO(S).

-- Norfolk, Va. 167,202

393

-- Pensacola, Fla. 288,431

-- Quonset Point, R.I. 185

Air Support Activity, Air

Engineering Center 388

Air Systems Command

-- Air Engineering Center 342

-- Bethpage, N.Y. 469

Ammunition Depot 344,496

Aviation Supply Office 72

Autodin Switch Center, Marine

Corps Supply Center 64

Commissary Stores 129

Communication Station 66

Electronic Systems Command

Activity 48

Exchange

-- Alameda, Calif. 443

-- Quonset Point, R.I. 128

-- San Juan P.R. 97

Fifth Naval District 403

Firefighter Unit 13 

Marine Corps Supply Center

-- Autodin Switch Center 64

Marine Corps Supply Center (Cont.)

-- Barstow, Calif, 205

Missle Center 369

National Medical Center 397 

Ordnance

-- Laboratory 301

-- Station " ' 337

Open Messes Club 40

Pacific Missle Range 339

Postgraduate School 235 

Public Works Center

-- San Francisco, Calif. 428

-- Waukegan, 111. 239

Radio Station 47

Roosevelt Roads Naval Station 56

Secretary of the Navy 431

Ship Repair Facility 198 

Shipyard

-- Bremerton, Wash. 497

-- Charleston, S.C. 16,28,135

137,372

-- Honolulu, Hawaii 439,458

462,506

-- Long Beach, Calif. 460

TITLE R/R N0(S).
Shipyard (Cont.)

-- Portsmouth, N.H. 82,144,224

322

-- Portsmouth, Va. 100,127,193

194,204,340

477,487

-- Station 

-- Air

-- Alameda, Calif, 443

-- Corpus Christi, Tex. 110

-- Norfolk, Va. 403

-- Philadelphia, Pa. 223

-- Quonset Point, R.I. 128,129,172

-- San Diego, Calif. 490 

-- Naval

-- Ceiba, P.R. 56

-- Honolulu, Hawaii 418

-- Long Beach, Calif. 6,13

-- Newport, R.I. 116,119,282

-- San Juan, P.R. 94,97

-- Supply Center

-- Newport, R.I. 41

-- Norfolk, Va. 203

-- Underwater Weapons Research

and Engineering ' 39,83

TITLE R/R NO(S).

62

-- War College 119

-- Weapons Center Calif. 410

— Weapons Station, Va. 293,298

Ordnance Laboratory and Station-- See Navy

Postal Service

-- Atlanta, Ga. - 8 8

-- Bettendorf, Iowa ~> 164

-- Chambersburg, Pa. ' 50

-- Charlotte, N.C. 74

-- Dallas, Tex. 106

-- Hammond, Ind. 96

— Philadelphia', Par 62

-- St. Louis, Mo. 152,153

-- St. Petersburg, Fla. 59

-- Stratford, N.J. 38

-- Weirton, W. Va. 132

Printing Pressmen's Union, No. 1, IPPA 92

Prisons, Bureau of-- See Justice

Public Health Service-- See Health,

Education and Welfare

Public Works Center-- See Navy

Retirement and Survivors Insurance,

Bureau of-- See Health, Education and

Welfare, Social Security

Rock Island Arsenal-- See Army

TITLE R/R N0(S).
TITLE R/R NO(S) .

St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation 495

Securities and Exchange Commission 446

Selective Service System,

State of California 115

Shipyard--See Navy

Social Security Administration--See

Health, Education and Welfare

Southeast Exchange Region Warehouse-- See

Army and Air Force Exchange

Supply Center--See Navy

Technical Training Center--See Air Force

Tennessee Valley Authority Engineers 

Association 30

Tobacco Division, Agricultural 

Marketing Service 432

Topographic Center, Defense Mapping 

Agency 383

Training Center--See Army

Transportation, Department of

-- Federal Aviation Administration

-- Aeronautical Center 161

-- Air Route Traffic Control Center

-- Boston 225,312

-- Denver 209

-- Fort Worth 220,299

-- Miami 150

Transportation, Department of (Cont.)

-- New York 71,99

-- Oakland 510

-- Air Traffic Control Tower

-- Atlanta, Ga. 190

-- Miami, Fla. 150

-- Airways Facility Sector

-- Albuquerque, New Mexico 398

-- Denver, Colo. 376

-- Greer,, S.C. 484

-- Kansas City, Mo. 80

-- Montgomery, Ala. 485

-- Des Plaines, 111. 176,213,313

-- National Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Center

104,233,277

279,280,281

420,433

-- National Capitol Airports,

Fire Departments 245

-- San Francisco, Calif. 348,349

-- Washington, D.C. 60,68,101

107,118,142

157,158,346

-- Federal Highway Admin. 453

TITLE R/R N0(S) .

63
Treasury, Department of

--Customs, Bureau of

-- AFGE Locals 2652, 2768, 2899,

and. Council of Customs Locals 409,416

-- Boston, Mass. 108

— New Orleans, La. 15

— St. Croix, V.I. 78 

-- San Juan, P.R. 37

- Disbursing Center 399

- Internal Revenue Service 

-- District

— Boston, Mass. 123

— Columbia, S.C. 465

— Greensboro, N.C. 421 

-- Indianapolis, Ind. 12

— Jacksonville, Fla. 109 

-- Los Angeles, Calif. 479

— Newark, N.J. 291 

-- New Orleans, La. 5 

-- New Yorfc, N.Y. 200 

-- Omaha, Nebr. 483

-- Mint, Bureau of 454,459

-- National Treasury Employees

Union 527

TITLE R/R NO(S).

National Treasury (Cont.) 

-- San Francisco, Calif. 

-- Service Center 

-- Austin, Tex.

-- Chamblee, Ga.

-- Memphis, Tenn.

-- Philadelphia, Pa.

-- Washington, D.C. 

Veterans Administration 

-- Bath, N.Y.

-- Data Processing Center 

-- Austin, Tex.

-- St. Paul, Minn.

-- Helena, Mont.

-- Hospital

-- Allen Park, Mich,

-- Amarillo, Tex.

-- Brecksville, Ohio 

-- Butler, Pa.

— Chicago, 111.

-- Downey, 111.

-- Durham, N.C.

TITLE

21,103

429,522

373,426

174

532

76,350

146,147,390

500,501,529

326,359,368

518,521

77

33

509

93,186,223

162

52,333,367

2

31

27

R/R N0(S).
Veterans Administration (Cont).

-- East Orange, N.J. 53,122,170

300

-- Fort Meade, S. Dak. 315

-- Jamica Plain, Mass. 26,486

-- LaJolla, Calif. 424

-- Miami, Fla. 95,325

-- Montgomery, Ala. _ 237

-- New Orleans, La. 514

- Mountain Home, Tenn. 437

- Newark, N.J. 42

- Research Hospital 377

- Washington, D.C. 169

TITLE . R/R NO(S).

)

65

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 30, 1970

Mr. E. E. Thompson 

President

International Association of Fire Fighters

Local F-154

Hq. 910th TASG (AFRES)

Youngstown Municipal Airport 

Vienna, Ohio 44473

Dear Mr. Thompson:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for

review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the RO petition

in U. S. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters 910th Tactical

Air Support Group (AFRES), Youngstown Municipal Airport, Vienna,

Ohio, Case No. 53-2973, and concluded that the appeal raises issues

which can best be resolved on the basis of record testimony.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to reinstate

the Appellant's petition and to issue promptly a notice of hearing

in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 30, 1970

Mr. John A. Coleman ' " £

President

General Service Employees Union 

Local No. 73, Service Employees 

International Union, AFL-CIO 

67 West Division Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60610

Dear Mr. Coleman:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your motion to 

dismiss the petition in Veterans Administration Hospital, Chicago, 

Illinois, Case No. 50-4383, and concluded that the appeal raises 

issues which can best be resolved on the basis of record testimony. 

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to issue 

promptly a notice of hearing in the proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr..

Assistant Secretary of Labor

67
Mr. James L. Keustadt 

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1(00 First Street, N. W. 3

Washington, D. C. 20001

Dear Mr. Keustadt:

The undersigned has carefully considered your Request for Review 

of the Regional Administrator's denial of intervenor's Motion 

to Dismiss Petition, in Department of the Army, U. S. Military 

Academy, West Point, New York, Case No. 30-25^7, and concludes 

that the appeal failed to raise substantial material issues of 

irreparable injury or prejudice to intervenor's legal rights under 

Executive Order 11U91, which would warrant reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's decision. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator's 

denial of the intervenor's Motion to Dismiss is sustained.

Sincerely,

VI. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENYOF LA-BOR......

July 8 , 1970

Mr. Herbert Cahn 4

President, Local 476,

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

P. 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739 

Dear Mr. Cahn:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your 

unfair labor practice complaint filed in U. S. Army Electronics 

Command, Port Monmouth, New Jersey, Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory, Case No. 32-1506, and concluded that a reasonable basis 

for the complaint has not been established. Accordingly, the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint in this 

matter is sustained.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

68
August 20, 1970

Mr. Myles J. Ambrose 

Commissioner of Customs

Bureau of Customs ^

2100 K Street, NW.

Washington, D. C. 20226

Re: United States Treasury Department 

Bureau of Customs 

Region V

Case No. 64-1098 (E)

Dear Mr. Ambrose:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's denial of your motion to dismiss the 

petition filed by American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 

2891, in the above-captioned case, and concluded that legitimate issues 

exist relating to the appropriateness of the unit which can best be 

resolved on the basis of record testimony. Accordingly, the Regional 

Administrator's denial of your motion to dismiss is sustained, and the 

Regional Administrator is directed to issue promptly a notice of hearing 

in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

August '12, 1970

Mr. Joseph J. Stengel 

Chief, General Legal Branch 

Operations and Planning Division 

Office of Chie£ Counsel 

Internal Revenue Service 

1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 2022k

He: United States Treasury Department 

Internal Revenue Service,

New Orleans District 

\ Case Ko. 6U- 10 9 9 (e)

Dear Mr. Stengel:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for revievr of 

the Regional Adninistrator1s denial of your request to dismiss the 

petition filed by the National Federation of Federal Employees in the 

above-named case arid concluded that legitimate issues exist relating to 

the appropriateness of the unit which can best be resolved on the basis 

of record testimony. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator's denial of 

your request to dismiss is sustained, and the Regional Administrator is 

directed to issue promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

69
August 2h, 1970

Kr. Kenneth T. Lyons

National President rNational Association of Government Employees ®

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Long Beach Naval Station 

Case Ro. 72-1^60 (RO)

Dear Mr.'Lyons:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the 

election in the subject case.

Under the Section 202.20.of the Rules and Regulations, any party 

filing objections to an election must serve copies of such objections 

"simultaneously" on the other parties and make a statement of service. 

Also, Section 205.6(d) of the Rules and Regulations) which is made 

applicable to situations involving requests for review of findings by 

a Regional Administrator with respect to objections to an election 

provides, in part, that "Copies of the requested review shall be served 

on the Regional Administrator and other parties, and statement of service 

shall be filed with the request for review."

The evidence in the subject case established that in filing its 

objections to the election with the Area Administrator and its subsequent request for review with the Assistant Secretary, the appellant 

did not comply with the service requirements contained in the above 

cited Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, 

your request for review based on the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your objections to the election is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

August 21, 1970

Mrs. Edna L. Tamaroff 

Social Security Administration 

855 Central Avenue 

Albany, New York 12205

Dear Mrs. Tamaroff:

Re: Social Security Administration

District Office, Albany, New York 

Case No. 35-1254 (E0)

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the decertification 

petition in the above-named case and concluded that the appeal raises 

issues which can best be resolved on the basis of record testimony.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to reinstate 

your petition and to issue promptly a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

W, J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

70
O fj-'ic h o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 24, 1970

Mr. Kenneth T. Lyons

National President q

National Association of Government Employees 

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Pueblo Army Depot

Case No. 61-1049 (E)

Dear Mr. Lyons:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator’s denial of your challenge to the validity 

of the petitioner's showing of interest in the subject case.

Under Section 202.2(f) of the Rules and Regulations, "Any party 

challenging the validity of showing of interest must file his challenge 

with the Area Administrator within ten (10) days after the initial date 

of posting of the notice of petition as provided in Section 202.4(b) and 

support his challenge with evidence."

The evidence in the subject case established that the challenge 

to the validity of the petitioner's showing of interest, which was filed 

with the Area Administrator, did not comply with the ten day requirement 

contained in the above-cited section of the Regulations. Accordingly, 

your request for review based on the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your challenge is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

August 12,. 2970

Mr. Stanley Q. Lyman

National Vice President q

National Association o f Government Employees ^

285 Porchcster Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: General Services Administration 

Federal Supply Service,

Raritan Arsenal 

Case Ko. 32-156? (R0)

Dear Mr. Lyraan:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your R0 petition in the 

above-captioned case, and has concluded that the appeal raises 

issues which can best be resolved on the basis of record testimony. 

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to reinstate 

the petition and to issue promptly a notice of hearing in this 

proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

71
O m e n o r T in : A s s i s t a n t S i x r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N , D .C . 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

<?/*/ 7 0

Mr. Nathan T. Wolkomir

President , _

National .Federation of Federal Employees 1 U

1737 H Street, NW.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Red River Army Depot

Department of the Army 

Case No. 63-2044 (E)

Dear Hr. Wolkomir:

"1

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of all objections filed by 

National Federation of Federal Employees, Local G03 (NFFE) to conduct 

of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election held 

among certain employees of the Red River Army Depot on October 29,

1969. Based upon a full review.of the evidence and positions offered 

by the parties, it is concluded that the Regional.Administrator's 

dismissal, of the objections was warranted for the following reasons;

Objection 1

Objection 1 contains several allegations of violations of the election 

and urges that such violations constitute valid grounds for setting 

aside the election.

The undersigned is of the opinion that the possible setting aside 

of an election should not be approached lightly, not only because of 

the added expense and inconvenience to the parties resulting from such 

an eventuality, but, also because it would delay the establishment of 

stable employee-management relations. This is especially true where the 

objection goes to alleged deviations from the terms of an election 

agreement which clearly would not improperly affect the results of the 

election. Accordingly, the substance of each alleged deviation must be 

analyzed on its own merits to determine if, in fact, the conduct 

improperly and materially affected the results of the election.

-2

Objection 1(a) alleged that representatives of National Association 

of Government Employees (NAGE) campaigned during working hours in 

violation of the election agreement. NFFE presented evidence of these 

incidents, which occurred more than one week prior to the election, 

wherein NAGE representatives were seen talking with a few employees in 

the area of an employee cafeteria during working hours. NFFE's own 

evidence presented at least tiiree different versions of the persons 

involved and the time consumed in the October 16, 1969, alleged campaigning 

incident. In any event, it is clear that not more than a few minutes and 

a very few employees were involved. Such conduct, in my opinion, although 

objectionable, would not affect the outcome of the election.

Objection 1(b) alleges that NAGE posted campaign literature in various 

work areas. However, evidence has not been produced to show that NAGE, 

in fact, did the posting. Moreover, there is no suggestion that such 

literature was present in or around the polling places on election day. 

Under these circumstances, I do not find the conduct objectionable.

Obje.ction 1(c) alleges that two NAGE observers left their respective 

poll stations in violation of instructions. No supporting evidence was 

offered establishing that the observers engaged in electioneering or any 

misconduct. The investigation disclosed that the absentee ballot which 

NFFE contends was delivered by one of the observers, during his absence, 

was voided and not counted.

It should be noted that although the parties may be represented at 

the polls by observers, the validity of the election is not dependent 

upon their availing themselves of this right. In the absence of rationale 

reflecting how the absence of the subject observers could prejudice any 

party other than NAGE, it is concluded /that such absences do not constitute conduct warranting the setting aside of the election.

Additionally, Objection 1(c) alleges that a NAGE member provided taxi 

service to the polls on election day. In the absence of evidence that 

such service was conditioned upon how the rider voted, the rendering of 

taxi service, which is a traditional and historic practice, does not 

constitute objectionable conduct.

It is alleged also that the NAGE employee providing the taxi service 

to the polls suggested to an illiterate rider that he should vote for 

NAGE by placing an "x" in the first block on the ballot. This allegation 

is unsupported by evidence;* however, even if it occurred, in the absence 

of proof that other employees heard the statement and acted responsively, 

this single vote could not be said to have affected the results of the 

election.
-3

Objection 1(d) suggests that the ballots cast at Polling Place No. 8 

be voided, as it is a "well founded suspicion that this observer (referred 

to in Objection 1(c), above) left his position to campaign and urge employees to go vote.” This objection is unsupported by any evidence..

Objection 1(e) alleges that NAGE officials were tardy for a pre-election 

conference scheduled in the election agreement. Similarly, NFFE contends 

that many NAGE observers did not attend designated training sessions 

and that such resulted in "unbecoming and inefficient" conduct at the 

polls on election day. No basis for a finding of objectionable conduct 

is established by this allegation.

Objection 2

Objection 2(a) alleges that NAGE distributed literature which deliberately misstated material facts which were within NAGE's knowledge 

and that the employees lacked independent knowledge to make a proper 

evaluation of the misstatements. NFFE made reference to statements 

relating to a "saving the employee's jobs1' contained in a particular 

piece of campaign literature entitled "There is a big difference: And 

it means your job!", elaborating that this job security issue had been a 

central one in*view of a pending RIF at the depot. NFFE contends that 

a job-security fear was instilled in voters which resulted in their 

casting their balbts for NAGE.

NFFE failed to state which "material facts" were deliberately misstated during the campaign, how the "saving the employee's jobs" issue 

was misrepresented in the supplied single piece of campaign literature, 

why the facts were within the peculiar knowledge of NAGE, or why NFFE 

could not rebut the NAGE statements, if they were false. An objecting 

party's obligation is not met with an unsupported allegation that certain 

verbal or written statements were false or otherwise objectionable, no 

matter how central the alleged misrepresentation was to the election 

campaign. ^

The undersigned notes that election campaigns are sometimes hotly 

contested and feelings may run high, as is apparent in the instant case.

As a result, parties may, in their zeal, overstate their own virtues and 

the alleged vices of their rivals. Precision and accuracy of statement 

are not always attained or expected by the voters who ordinarily view such 

statements in the context of the election situation. In reviewing the 

Mjob-securityM statements pointed to by NFFE in the aforementioned literature, it appears that employees readily could recognize the assertions 

as mere self-serving election propaganda. There seems to be no basis for 

a conclusion that the ability of employees to evaluate the election choices 

available to them was so impaired by the campaign statements that they 

were unable to vote intelligently on the issues.

-4

Accordingly, it is concluded that the specified NAGE statements are 

not objectionable.

Objection 2(b) alleges that a specific piece of NAGE literature 

depicting NFFE's president, Mr. Nathan T. Wolkomir, in a cartoon format 

was libelous or scurrilous, and, since it was circulated the day prior 

to the election, NFFE did not have opportunity to reply.

It is the opinion of the undersigned that the complained of cartoon 

literature required no reply since the employees were readily able to 

evaluate it as campaign literature.

In the same objection, NFFE averred to other NAGE literature relating 

to the Wage Board Committee, which, it alleges, contained a half-truth.

KFFE proffered no evidence that NFFE did not have a full opportunity to 

rebut the literature. In fact, NFFE's own words, indicating that NAGE 

"played up to the fullest," imply anything other than a last minute tactic 

or trick.

Objection 3

Objections 3(a), (b) and (c) allege that various NAGE representatives 

orally threatened various NFFE representatives and employees. However, 

the assertions arc vague. It is not clear, even, that the alleged 

animosity between the NFFE representative Nigro ,and NAGE representative 

Breen was related to the context of the election campaign. Similarly, 

the alleged NAGE threat to a Hr. Ferguson appears to have been related 

to a suspected theft incident and not to the election campaign. In any 

event, such conduct, if it occurred, is not condoned, and there has been 

no evidence presented to establish that the complained of conduct materially 

affected the results of the election.

As for NFFE's vague suggestion that NAGE prevented Mr. Nigro from 

actively campaigning during a portion of his stay in the depot area, 

such an allegation is unsupported by specific evidence. Too, the lack 

of campaigning by a single individual is clearly of such limited impact 

as to be said to have affected the results of the election.

Objection 3(d) alleges that NAGE representative Breen interrupted a 

campaign speech by NFFE president Wolkomir and that such created a 

"climate of confusion" which had a "direct bearing" on the alleged fact 

that a substantial percentage of eligible employees failed to vote. This 

objection is unsupported by evidence.

Objection 4

Objection 4 alleges that NAGE conducted a “whisper campaign" which 

misled employees regarding their need or right to vote. Such objection 

is unsupported by evidence.
-5

Objection 5

Objections 5(a), (b) and (c) allege that certain conduct of NAGE representatives, related to attendance or participation in pre-election 

meetings, was objectionable. NFFE does not specify upon v.’hnt basis it 

nnkcs such contention, nor does the evidence presented reflect that the 

alleged conduct had any affect whatever on the results of the election.

Objection 5(d) alleges that the "large number of challenged voters" 

proved that t'he depot officials did not communicate with the employees as 

to who were eligible to vote and that such constituted grounds for 

setting aside the election. No supporting evidence was furnished reflecting that a single eligible employee was not advised of bus right to 

vote. Certainly, the fact that an ineligible employee did vote is 

irrelevant to a consideration of the merits of this objection. Accordingly, 

Objection 5(d) states no legitimate objectionable ground.

Objection 5(e) alleges that a single NAGE representative conversed with 

the ballot counters following the election. Nl'FE offered no evidence that 

such conversation, even if it occurred, resulted in an inaccurate count.

Too, a post-election conversation cannot be said to have affected the 

voting. Accordingly, no basis exists for a finding that this alleged NAGE 

conduct constitutes grounds for setting aside the election.

Objection 5(f) relates to alleged NAGE misconduct at other depots= In 

the absence of specific evidence that conduct at another facility had an 

effect on'the instant election, a suggested pattern of conduct is of no 

consequence in the disposition of this case.

Objection 5(g) alleges that NAGE made a statement that 2,000 campaign 

"stickers" had been stolen .and that such left an "implication that Nl'FE 

or another competing labor organization had "framed" NAGE. NFFE offered 

no supporting evidence. In the absence of specific evidence otherwise, 

the undersigned is not prepared to assume that such an implication 

necessarily flowed from any such remark, even if made.

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside is denied and 

the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate 

certification of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O p n c n o h t j i i : A s s i s t a n t Si x r l t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N . U .C . 20210 J

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

V- :

j 7 0

William J. Oberlielman, Jr., Esq. 11

315 Exchange Place

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Re: Reesler Technical 

Training Center 

Case No. 41-1716 (DR)

• Dear Mr. Oberhelman:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition 

in the subject matter.

It lias been concluded that the statement of Local 2670 tr;at 

it no longer claimed to represent t.he unit of nurses was clear and 

unequivocal. Such a disclaimer of interest necessarily must be held 

to extend only to the bargaining unit currently represented by the 

incumbent union. Hence, the organizational campaign by Local 2670 

among a larger and different composition of employees did not constitute conduct inconsistent with the disclaimer, notwithstanding the 

fact that Local 2670 has indicated its intention to include the nurses 

as part of the larger, future contemplated unit.

Accordingly, your request for the reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the petition is denied.

.Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

74
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 8 , 1970

Mr. Robert M. Tobias. 40-

Suite 1100

711 - 14th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: United States Treasury Department, 

Internal Revenue Service, 

Indianapolis District 

Case Nos. 50-4570 and 50-4558

Dear Mr. Tobias:

The undersigned has received your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's denial of your "Request for Dismissal of Election Petition 

filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1008" in 

the above captioned cases.

Consistent with Report No. 8 , dated August 14, 1970, a copy of which 

is attached hereto, announcing a decision of the undersigned, you are 

advised that no provision is contained in the Rules and Regulations for 

the filing of a request for review of a Regional Administrator's action in 

denying a motion to dismiss a petition.

Accordingly, your request for review in these cases will not be 

considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 30, 1970

v

Mr. H. C.~ Harmelink

International Representative 13

International Association of Fire Fighters 

5236 Rincon Street 

San Diego, California

Dear Mr. Harmelink:

v

The undersigned has carefully considered your Request for Review 

of the Regional Administrator's action in dismissing as untimely 

your petition to intervene.in Long Beach Naval Station Fire Fighters 

Unit, Case No. 72-1486, and concluded that the appeal failed to 

show good cause for extending the ten (1 0 ) day intervention period, 

set forth in Section 202.5 of the rules and regulations or raise 

any material issue which would warrant reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's action.. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of your petition for intervention is sustained.

- Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

75
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 25, 1970

Mr. Kenneth J. Bull 

National Representative 

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

5001 South Washington 

Englewood, Colorado 80110

Re: Colorado Air

National Guard 

Case No. 61-1024 (E)

Dear Mr. Bull:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator's overruling of your objections to 

the elections in the above-named case.

Specifically, your request for review is based on the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of your objection concerning the alleged improper 

intervention by the Association of Civilian Technicians, Inc. (ACT) in the 

election proceedings.

The evidence reveals that ACT was permitted to intervene in the 

proceedings more than ten days after the initial date of posting of the 

notice of petition by the Area Administrator who extended the time to ten 

days from the receipt of the latter's letter of March 4, 1970. It should 

be noted in this regard that Section 202.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations provides that the period for intervention may be extended. 

Further, the evidence established that at no time prior to the consent 

elections of April 1 and April 15, 1970, did the American Federation of 

Government Employees (AFGE) challenge or object to ACT's standing as an 

intervenor despite the fact that it had knowledge that ACT had been 

permitted to intervene in the proceedings. Accordingly, AFGE had, in 

effect, waived any right of challenge of ACT's status by entering into the 

election agreement to which ACT was also a party.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, your objection with 

respect to ACT's intervention, which could have been raised prior to the 

holding of the consent elections, is considered untimely. Accordingly, 

your request that the election be set aside is denied and the Regional 

Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate certification of 

representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

76
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

October 14, 1970

Mr. Thomas M. Gittings, Jr. i r

520 Shoreham Building 

800 15th Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Re: United States Treasury Department 

Bureau of Customs 

Region V

Cases Nos. 64-1098(E) and 

64-1132(E)

Dear Mr. Gittings:

The undersigned has received your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's denial of your motion to dismiss the 

petition filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, 

Local No. 2891, and to cancel the hearing scheduled in Case No. 

64-1098(E) and order an election in Case No. 64-1132(E).

Consistent with Report No. 8 , dated August 14, 1970, a copy 

of which is attached hereto, announcing a decision of the undersigned, you are advised that no provision is contained in the 

Rules and Regulations for the filing of a request for review of a 

Regional Administrator's action in denying a motion to dismiss a 

petition.

Accordingly, your request for review in these cases will not 

be considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S. DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e : o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W ASH IN GTO N . / , /h

* r

Mr. Patrick C. O'Donoghue

Counsel, Federal Employees /yd

Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO

1912 Sunderland Place, N. W. ■I'5'

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Charleston Naval 

Shipyard 

Case No. A0-1926 (R0)

Dear Mr. O'Donoghue:

This refers to your August 6, 1970, letter to me 

in which you seek review of dismissal by the Labor- 

-Management Services Administration's Regional Administrator of your challenge to the petitioner1s status 

as'a labor organization in Case No. 40-1926 (R0).

•I have reviewed the background of this case and 

have determined that the Regional Administrator's 

action was correct. Section 202.2(g) of the Regulations 

implementing Executive Order 11491, which provides for 

challenges to the status of a labor organization in the 

course of representation proceedings, does not contemplate 

challenges based on alleged violations of the standards 

of conduct.

As Regional Administrator Chennault informed you, 

the procedures for enforcing the standards of conduct 

are set forth in Part 204 of the Regulations. Complaints 

of alleged violations of the Bill of Rights of members 

of labor organizations (section 204.2) and the provisions 

relating to the election.of officers (section 204.29) 

may be brought only by a member of the labor organization.

If you have concrete evidence of an actual 

violation of the other provisions of the Regulations 

(Part 204) implementing the standards of conduct, you

77
- 2 -

should present it to an Area Administrator in accordance 

with section 204.53. However, the processing of 

representation cases will not be delayed pending 

investigation and resolution "of complaints, filed as 

provided in the Regulations, alleging violations of 

Part 20k.

Sincerely,

\!. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

October 28, 1970

Mr. William F. Carr 

Chief Counsel

National Association of Government ^ ry

Employees *

285 Dorchester Avenue .

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: General Services Administration 

Federal Supply Service ^

Raritan Arsenal Depot 

Case No. 32-1567

Dear Mr. Carr:

The undersigned has carefully considered your appeal concerning 

a decision rendered by the Hearing Officer and the Regional Administrator in the subject case with respect-to the scope of the issues 

before the Hearing Officer.

Section 202.10(a) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations 

provides, in part, that in connection with representation case 

hearings, "Motions made prior to the transfer of the case to the 

Assistant Secretary shall be filed with the Regional Administrator, 

with a copy to the Area Administrator, except that motions made 

during the hearing shall be filed with the Hearing Officer." Section 

202.10(c) further provides that, "All motions, rulings and orders 

shall become a part of the record. Rulings by the Regional Administrator or by the Hearing Officer shall be considered by the Assistant 

Secretary when the case is transferred to him for decision." Since 

the representation case hearing in this matter is still in progress 

and there has been no transfer of the case to the Assistant Secretary, 

your appeal is untimely. It should be noted that in accordance with 

the above-mentioned Regulations, you will have an opportunity to 

state your position as to the scope of the issues before the Hearing 

Officer on the record when the hearing resumes.

Accordingly, since your appeal in this matter is untimely it 

must be denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

78
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o r t h e A s^ist'a x t S ^ c k d t a k v

WASrilXGiON, D.C. 202i0

N O V 2 1970

Raymond J. Malloy. Esci®

Associate Staff Counsel 

American Federation of Government 

Employees (ArL-CIO)

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D„ C, 20001

Re: KASA Audit Division (Code DU)

Case No. 46-1648 (RO)__________

Dear Kr. Malloy:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrators dismissal of your petition in the above 

named case.

The language of Section 3(b)(4) of the Executive Order clearly 

states that the head of an agency, in his sole judgment, may exclude 

certain segments of his organization from the coverage of the Order, i 

am of the opinion that a decision by an agency head under the-authority 

granted in Section 3(b)(4) is not subject to review by the Assistant 

Secretary under Section 6 of the Order.

In view of my above stated opinion, an investigation into the 

merits of the KASA Administrator^ determination to exclude the Audit 

Division from coverage of the Order does not appear to be appropriate.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

October 21, 1970

Mr. Harrison C. Duff, Jr.

Regional Coordinator

National Federation of Federal 4 q

Employees 

502 West Latham, Apt. 3 

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Re: Department of Health, Education

and Welfare, Division of Indian 

Health,

Public Health Service, Intermountain 

Indiana School Health Center 

Case No.. 61-1077

Dear Mr. Duff:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objections filed by National 

Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1726 to the election held among 

certain employees of the Intermountain Indian School Health Center, at 

Brigham City, Utah, on August 21, 1970. Based upon a full review of the 

evidence submitted and positions offered by the parties, it is concluded 

that the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objections was warranted.

The investigative facts disclosed that of a total of approximately 

20 eligible voters, the balloting resulted in a tie vote, with 6 votes 

being cast for conclusive representation by NFFE and 6 votes against 

representation. No challenged ballots were cast and one employee appearing 

at the polling place ten (X) minutes after the polls had closed, in 

accordance with the terms of the agreement for consent election, was not 

permitted to cast a late ballot by the Area Administrator's election 

supervisor.

The request for review does not assert that the late employee was 

improperly denied the right to vote. It objects solely to the lack of a 

decision being made by the election supervisor or the Acting Area Administrator that the election should be set aside and rerun. It is asserted 

that the arrival of the late employee shows that a positive election 

decision would result if a new election is held.

79
- 2 -

Based on a review of the essential facts, and after consideration of 

NFFE's position, I conclude in agreement with the decision of the Regional 

Administrator that the objections do not raise any relevant questions of 

fact which may have affected the results of the election. Section 202.17 

(c) of the Regulations clearly provides that "an exclusive representative 

shall be chosen by a majority of the valid ballots cast." Additionally, 

the procedures set forth in Section 202.21 and 202.22 of the Regulations, 

governing runoff and inconclusive elections respectively, are limited in 

application to situations in which the ballot in the original election 

contains three or more choices.

In view of the foregoing, your request that the election be rerun is 

denied and the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate certification of the results of the election issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOF.

NOV 2 1970

Mr. Irving I. Geller

Director of Legal & Employee Relations 20

National Federation of Federal Employees 

1737 "H" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Arkansas National Guard 

Case No. 64-1136 (CA)

Dear Mr. Geller:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the abovenamed case.

I agree with the Regional Administrator that the portions of your 

complaint which allege violations of Sections 19(a), (2), (3), and (6) are 

not properly before the Assistant Secretary. Under Section 203.2 of the 

Regulations a charge must be filed directly with the party or parties 

against whom the charge is directed prior to filing a complaint with the 

Assistant Secretary. Further, Section 203.2 requires that the alleged unfair 

labor practice shall be investigated by the parties involved and informal 

attempts to resolve the matter shall be made by the parties. There is no 

evidence that such attempts have been made regarding these allegations. 

Accordingly, the dismissal of those portions of the complaint by the Regional 

Administrator was proper. This action, however, in no way precludes your 

organization from attempting to resolve the matters complained of with the 

agency involved and, if your attempts are unsuccessful, refiling a timely 

complaint with the Area Administrator.

It appears that the Regional Administrator relied upon the wrong 

reason in dismissing the portion of the complaint involving an alleged 

violation of Section 19(a)(4). It is clear from the evidence, and the 

complaint itself, that the basis of the complaint was the March 25, 1970 

posting of the statement concerning Mr. Ralph Heflin. After reviewing all 

the facts concerning the posting of this statement I find that such posting 

did not constitute a violation of Section 19(a)(4). In this connection

80
it should be noted that the term "complaint" as contained in Section 19(a)(4) 

means a written allegation of a violation of Section 19 of Executive Order 

11491. Since Mr. Heflin obviously was not disciplined or otherwise discriminated against for filing a "complaint" or giving testimony under Section 19 

of the Order, I agree with the Regional Administrator's dismissal of that 

portion of the complaint. However, since the Regional Administrator did not 

address himself to the question of whether or not the posting of the statement 

on March 25, 1970 constituted a violation of Section 19(a)(1) I am remanding 

the case to him for further investigation and consideration of that issue.

When the Regional Administrator has completed his investigation 

concerning the allegation of a violation of Section 19(a)(1) of the Order, 

you will be advised of his findings.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

o v t j i j ; A s s i s t a n t Si-:caK TA nY 

W A S H IN G T O N , D .C , 20210

U.u. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Rpbert K» Tobias, Esq.

Staff Counsel

National Association of Interna)

Revenue Service Employees 

Suite 1100

711 - 14th Street, N« W«

Washington,’ D. C. 20005

Re: United States Treasury Department,

•Internal Revenue Service 

Case Nos. 70-1499~and 72-1432 ___

Dear Mr. Tobias:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's denial of.your motion to dismiss the 

petition filed by American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2202, 

in Case No. 72-1482.

On August 14, 1970, Report No* 8 was issued by my office stating, 

in part, that the Regulations make no provision for filing a request for 

revieu of a Regional Administrator's denial of a motion to dismiss a 

petition and would not be considered. Accordingly, your request for dismissal of AFGE's petition cannot be considered. The issue of appropriateness 

of the unit based upon extent of organization may be raised at a representation hearing for consideration and decision.

Accordingly, your request for dismissal of the petition filed by 

AFGE in Case No. 72-1482 is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

21

81
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h e As s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

NOV 19 1970

Mr. Carl W. Holt 

National Representative

American Federation of Government O O

Employees, AFL-CIO 

P. 0. Box 1152 

Omaha, Nebraska 68101

Re: U. S. Army Weapons Command 

Rock Island, Illinois 

Case No. 5 0 - 4 6 1 8 _____

Dear Mr. Holt:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator*s refusal to set aside a 

runoff election held among certain employees of the U. S. Army 

Weapons Command, Rock Island, Illinois, on September 24, 1970.

AFGE Local 3207 was a party to the first election conducted 

on September 3, 1970, which provided the employees with a choice 

from among AFGE Local 3207, NFFE Local 15, NAGE Local R7-35 and 

none. The election resulted in none and NAGE Local R7-35 receiving 

the largest and second largest number of votes respectively. 

Subsequently, pursuant to Section 202.21 of the Regulations a runoff 

election was scheduled providing the employees with a choice between NAGE Local R7-35 and no union.

Section 202.20(a) of the Regulations provides "...any party 

may file ... objections to the conduct of the election or conduct 

affecting the results of the election..." The Regulations make no 

provision for the filing of objections by parties other than those 

involved in the election. You are advised that a union whose name 

does not appear on the election ballot has no standing to file 

objections to the conduct of the election.

Accordingly, since the name of AFGE Local 3207 did not appear 

on the ballot in the runoff election having been eliminated therefrom by the earlier election to which no objections were filed, your 

request that the Regional Administrator's determination be overruled 

is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

82
DEC 7 1970

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Nathan T. Wolkomir

President p o

National Federation of Federal Employees

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Department of The Army 

Tooele Army Depot 

Tooele, Utah 

Case No. 61-1041 (E)

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objections filed by National 

Federation of Federal Employees, Local 862, to conduct affecting the 

results of the runoff election held among certain employees of the 

Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, on July 30, 1970. Based upon a full 

review of the evidence submitted and positions offered by the parties, 

it is concluded that the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the 

objections was warranted.

The investigative facts disclosed that balloting in a consent 

election involving a unit of certain employees at the Depot, held 

on July 16, 1970, failed to produce a majority vote for one of 

three choices, i.e., petitioner AFGE Local 2185, intervenor NFEE 

Local 862, and no-union. A runoff election providing a choice between NFFE and no-union, held on July 30th, resulted in a majority 

of valid votes being cast against union representation..

The basis for the objections was the content of an unsigned 

Letter to the Editor printed on page two of The Tooele Bulletin, a 

local newspaper, on July 28, 1970, two days before the runoff election.

The same issue of the paper carried a front page news item 

apparently based on an NFFE news release.

)

Both items commented on the forthcoming election, and were 

substantially in agreement as to the length of time NFFE had been 

active at the Depot and with respect to NFFE's claim to present 

exclusive recognitions. The news release described the election 

as crucial and sought the support of two other labor organizations 

having exclusive recognitions at the Depot. The Letter to the 

Editor raised questions as to NFFE's past effectiveness and conduct.

Campaign representations must be examined in terms of whether 

they are such that employees to whom they are directed are capable 

of evaluating them. Precision and accuracy of statements are not 

always attained or expected by the voters who ordinarily view such 

statements in the context of the election situation. Iii this case 

there is insufficient basis for concluding that the Letter to the 

Editor was of such a nature as to have impaired the ability of 

employees to evaluate the election choices.

Accordingly, your, request that the election be set aside is 

denied and the Regional Administrator is directed hereby to have 

an appropriate certification of the results of the election issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery,. Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

83
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Orjici: o p L a iu );c-N^.\ n a C !: m i ; n t R ix a t io n s

Y M S| JiN’G T O X , D .C . ?.0210

December 4, .19 70

Mr. Paul K. Tamaroff‘ 24

.1.8 liarold Avenue 

Latham, New York 12110

Re: Health, Education and Welfare 

Social•Security Administration 

District Office, Albany,Kev; York 

Case No. 35-125 4 E.O.

Dear Mr. Tamaroff:

The undersigned has considered carefully your appeal 

concerning a ru]ing rendered by the Hearing Officer in the 

subject case sustaining an objection by the Intervenor as 

to the relevancy of certain evidence.

Section 202.10(a) of the Assistant .Secretary's 

Regulations provides, in part, that in connection with 

representation case hearings, "Motions made prior to the 

transfer of the case to the Assistant Secretary shall be 

filed with the Regional Administrator, with a copy to 

the Area Administrator, except that motions made during 

the hearing shall be filed with the Hearing Officer."

Section 202.10(c) further provides that, "All motions, 

rulings and orders shall become a part of the record.

Rulings by the Regional Administrator or by the Hearing 

Officer shall be considered by the Assistant Secretary 

when the case is transferred to him for decision."

Because the representation case hearing in this matter is 

still in progress and there has been no transfer of the 

case to the Assistant Secretary, your appeal is untimely.

Accordingly, because your appeal in this matter is 

untimely it must be denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

A s s istant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

December 8 , 1970

Mr. Stanley Q.. Lyman 

National Vice President

National Association of qjt

Government Employees 

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: General Services Administration 

Memphis, Tennessee 

Case No. 41-1736

Dear Mr. Lyman:

This is in response to your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's action in the above named case.

On November 22, 1970, the Regional Administrator notified 

the parties that he had determined to reconsider the matter 

and that upon further investigation and consideration of the 

facts in this case he would issue a report on challenges.

Accordingly, until such time as the Regional Administrator issues his report on challenges, a request for review is 

untimely and will not be considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

December 7, 1970

Mr. Guy Colletti

National Representative

American Federation of Government

Employees of?

512 Gallivan Boulevard 

Suite 2

Dorchester, Massachusetts 02124

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts 

Case No. 31-3178 (EO)

Dear Mr. Colletti:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of objections filed by American Federation of 

Government Employees, AFL-CIO, to conduct affecting the results of the 

election held among certain employees of the Veterans Administration 

Hospital, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, on April 28, 1970. Based upon a 

full review of the evidence submitted and positions offered by the parties, 

it is concluded that the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the objections 

was warranted.

AFGE’s first objection alleged in essence that NAGE violated an 

agreement between the parties that the unions would not distribute literature attacking the Veterans Administration. This side agreement, to the 

Agreement for Consent or Directed Election referred only to the posting of 

such literature. However, AFGE asserted it was intended that such 

literature would not be distributed.

The investigative facts disclosed that subsequent to the election 

agreement, NAGE distributed a leaflet containing an article critical of 

the budget and staffing of Veterans Administration hospitals and asserted 

that the hospitals in Massachusetts were run on the equivalent of an 

animal hospital budget compared to State and local hospitals. Another 

article made an ambiguous reference to AFGE as a "conflict-of-interest" 

organization incapable of representing employees.

-2-

I will not undertake to police collateral election agreements which 

attempt to govern the conduct of the parties. Further, the breach of such 

agreements will not be grounds for setting aside an election absent other 

conduct which improperly affected the conduct or the results of the election.

I have considered the contents of the leaflet and conclude that the statements contained therein readily could be recognized by the employees as 

mere self-serving election propaganda. Also, the leaflet was not of a 

nature which would have impaired the ability of the employees to evaluate 

the election choices available to them or to vote intelligently on the 

issues. Accordingly, it is concluded that the leaflet was not objectionable.

AFGE's second objection alleged in essence that NAGE’s campaign 

material was filled with untruthful statements and gross misinterpretations 

which violated the spirit and intent of any election and contained malicious 

falsehoods which had a detrimental effect on AFGE in the election. AFGE 

specifically objected to four NAGE leaflets, including one entitled "The 

Big Lie Answered" distributed on the day prior to the election and to which 

AFGE asserted it had insufficient time for response.

The investigative facts disclosed that both NAGE and AFGE distributed 

numerous pre-election campaign leaflets to employees. Except for the 

leaflet "The Big Lie Answered," the evidence submitted does not establish 

the dates or order of distribution of the literature. No evidence was 

submitted in support of the contention that AFGE could not respond adequately 

to the leaflet distributed on the day prior to election. In any event, 

upon review of the campaign literature distributed by both unions, I find 

that "The Big Lie Answered" leaflet introduced no new issues into the campaign 

and that the inaccuracies and misrepresentations allegedly contained in the 

four NAGE leaflets had been answered or contradicted by AFGE’s campaign 

literature. Neither party is entitled as a matter of right to the "last 

word" in pro-election campaigns. In the circumstances of this case I find 

the NAGE’s leaflets could be recognized as self-serving campaign propaganda 

and were not of such a nature so as to deprive the employees of their 

ability to vote intelligently on the issues.

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside is denied 

and the Regional Administrator is directed hereby to have an appropriate 

certification of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

DEC 18 1970

Helen E. Peeler, R.N.

Executive Director

North Carolina State Nurses'

Association 

P. 0. Box 12025 

2301 Clark Avenue 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Re:• Veterans Administration 

Hospital 

Durham, North Carolina 

Case No. 40-1945______

Dear Miss Peeler:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of objections filed by North Carolina State 

Nurses* Association, to conduct affecting the results of the election 

held among certain employees of the Veterans Administration Hospital, 

Durham, North Carolina, on June 11, 1970. Based upon a full review of 

the evidence submitted and positions offered by the parties, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the objections 

was warranted.

The request for review relates to NCSNA's objection alleging, in 

essence, that AFGE Local 2345 was permitted to post campaign material 

and notices of meetings on several bulletin boards while NCSNA was restricted to the use of one bulletin board. It is asserted that the 

activity had thus failed to maintain a true position of neutrality 

by granting of special privileges to AFGE.

The facts disclosed that on March 19, 1970, AFGE Local 2345 filed 

a petition for an election among non-supervisory nurses at the Hospital.

On April 21, 1970, NCSNA was permitted to intervene in the proceedings 

and participated in the election on June 11, 1970.

In 1968, the activity recognized AFGE Local 2345 as the exclusive representative of non-professional employees at the Hospital and 

the current contract, in part, provides "The designated bulletin board 

on the ground floor is the official union bulletin board. Limited 

space may also b.e provided on existing Hospital bulletin boards for 

posting meeting notices."

- 2 -

After filing its petition and subsequent to NCSNA*s intervention, AFGE posted campaign material on its official bulletin board.

On several occasions it posted notices of meetings scheduled for nurses 

on other bulletin boards. It appears that on about May 26, 1970, NCSNA 

requested the activity's permission to post campaign material and meeting notices. It was authorized use of the activity's ground floor bulletin board, located adjacent to AFGE's official bulletin board, and was 

not authorized use of other bulletin boards.

While AFGE was permitted the posting of notices of meetings on 

various bulletin boards pursuant to terms of its contract, it is noted 

that the activity promptly, upon request, made its own bulletin board 

available to NCSNA. It is noted also that NCSNA utilized the ground 

floor bulletin board for posting campaign material and no evidence 

was submitted establishing that NCSNA was unable to adequately communicate with employees or that the activity had expressed any preference 

between the unions.

While an activity has an obligation to maintain a position of 

neutrality in rival union campaigns and to refrain from granting special privileges which create an imbalance in the opportunities of the 

unions, I conclude in the circumstances of this case that the facts 

failed to establish that the activity's conduct created an imbalance 

of opportunities between the unions or constituted a breach of neutrality which warranted the setting aside of the election.

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside is 

denied and the Regional Administrator is directed hereby to have an 

appropriate certification of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

86
O f f j c k o f tm j; A s s i s t a n t S i x h e t a r y 0

W A S H IN G T O N , D .C . 20210 £ \&\

% L- J ■Ziijy}#-

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

January 5, 1971

Mr. Patrick O'Donoghue 28

0 Donoghue 6. 0 Donoghue 

1912 Sunderland Place, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Charleston Naval Shipyard

Case No. 40-1926 (R0) 

Dear Mr. O'Donoghue:

This refers to your request for an extension of time for filing a 

request for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your t

challenge to the validity of the National Association of Government Employees1 

shovring of interest in the above cited case.

On August 14, 1970, Report No. 8 (copy attached) was issued by my 

office. This Report states, in part, that the Regulations make no provision 

for filing a request for review of a Regional Administrator's denial of a 

motion to dismiss a petition and would not be considered. Similarly, the 

Regulations make no provision for filing a request for review of a Regional 

Administrator's decision to dismiss a challenge to the validity of a showing 

of interest.

Accordingly, your request for an extension of time to file a request 

for review is denied.

This should not be construed in any way as a reflection of my views 

regarding the substa.ntive comments contained in Regional Administrator 

Chennault's letter to you dated December 21, 1970.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OrncK o? t h e A s s i s t a n t S j x r e t a p . y 

W A S H IN G T O N , D .C . 20210

J A N 1 o ■ • • '

M r . R e x H. R e e d 

Associate General Counsel 

L a b o r Relations 

Headquarters, A r m y and Air F o r c e 

E x c h a n g e Service 

Dallas, T e x a s 75222

Re: Headquarters, A r m y and Air 

F o r c e E x c h a n g e Service 

Randolph Air F o r c e Bas e E x c h a n g e 

Case No. 63~2015(E)

D e a r M r . Reed:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to c o n ­

duct affecting the results of the consent election held a m o n g 

certain e m p l o y e e s at Headquarters A r m y and Air F o r c e Base 

Exchange, Randolph Air F o r c e Base, Texas, on June 19, 1970.

B a s e d upon a full review of the evidence submitted and positions 

offered by the parties, it is concluded that dismissal of the objections w a s warranted.

T h e election provided a choice between representation by 

Local Lo d g e 1025, International Association of Machinists and 

A e r o s p a c e W o r k e r s (AFL- C I O ) , or no union. A majority of the 

valid ballots w e r e cast for I A M . T h e activity and the union had 

agreed beforehand that electioneering would cease twenty-four 

hours prior to the election, that neither literature, nor buttons or 

badges of any kind, would be displayed on election day, and that 

representatives of both parties would r e m a i n a w a y f r o m the general 

area of balloting while the polls w e r e open. T h e objections filed 

with the A r e a Administrator alleged that two representatives of the 

union breached this a g r e e m e n t and engaged in conduct affecting the 

results of the election.

M y position with respect to the policing of such side a g r e e m e n t s 

is set forth in m y Report on Decision No. 20, issued D e c e m b e r 8 ,

1970, a copy of which is attached lor your information. Consistent

29

87
2

with m y position as stated therein, the only issue for consideration 

in this case is whether the union representatives were present or 

had campaigned within the "polling area" during the conduct of the 

election, or had engaged in other conduct affecting the results of 

the election. The investigation established that locations visited 

by IAiv£ representatives on the Base on the day of the election were 

at distances varying from one hundred (100) feet to four blocks from 

the polling site, the nearest being in a snack bar across the street 

from Die building in which the' election was conducted. The lfots in 

which Lheir automobiles, bearing union windshield and bump.cr 

stickers, were parked were located from one and one-half bo three 

blocks from the polling site. Other than their mere presence on 

the Base, as described above, no facts were submitted establishing 

that they engaged in conduct affecting the results of the election.

It is m y conclusion that the facts fail to establish that the union 

representatives were present or had campaigned.within the "polling 

area, " or had engaged in other conduct affecting the results of the 

election.

Your request for review additionally alleged as objectionable 

certain conduct unrelated to that alleged in the objections timely 

filed with the Area Administrator. It is m y conclusion that objections newly raised in a request for review are untimely under 

Section 202. 20 of the Regulations and will not be considered.

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside is 

denied and the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have 

an appropriate certification of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J, Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h i ; A s s i s t a n t Sf c h h t a r y c' i”

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C. 20:10 r, r - M

\ iV: I

10/22/70

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Arnold G. Cohen 

Bernstein, Dougherty h Susano

1200 Hamilton National Bank Building o O

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902

Dear Mr. Cohen:

This is in response t.o your letter to Area Administrator, 

Homer Krog, dated September 2, 1970, which was forwarded, along 

with the material you enclosed, to me by Regional Administrator,

J. Y. Chennault.

I have taken the position that effective administration 

of the Executive Order requires that I refrain from rendering 

advisory opinions. The questions you raise in your letter appear 

to be subtle and complex ones, suggesting the necessity of close' 

analys'is of certain statutory provisions and contract provisions, 

as well as the language and history of the Order. It is my 

position that these questions can be better resolved when they 

arise in the context of a case in controversy under the Order.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t i i i : A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Kenneth T. Lyons.

National President 

National Association of 

Government Employees 

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Downey Veterans Administration 

Hospital, Downey,- Illinois 

Case No. 50-46.34'

Dear Mr. Lyons:

The undersigned has received your request for review 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's decision dismissing 

certain of your objections to conduct affecting the results 

of the runoff election held on December 9, 1969 in the 

above named case.

The Acting Regional Administrator, in his decision 

December 14, 1970, served on all parties on that date,

.instructed that any party aggrieved by. his findings may 

obtain a review of his decision by filing a request for 

review with the undersigned by the close of business 

December 28, 1970, and directed the attention of the parties 

to Sections 202.6(d) and 202.20(f) of the Regulations. Your 

request for review, dated and mailed December 28, 1970, was 

received on December 31> 1970 and therefore was untimely.

In addition to lack of timeliness in filing, your request for review was defective with respect to service on 

the Regional Administrator as prescribed by Section 202.6(d). 

Enclosed herewith is a copy of Report No. 14 which states 

my position with respect to the service requirements contained in the Regulations.

In view of the foregoing, your request for review will 

not be considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of.Labor

O f f i c e o f t i i i ; A s s i s t a n t S i x h e 't a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N , D .C . ■ 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT. OF LABOR.

F E B 3 t9-7t

Mr. Carmine V. Rivera 

National Vice President 

National Association of

Government Employees q a

18670 .Ventura Boulevard 

Suite F

Tarzana, California 91356

Re; Sacramento Army Depot 

Sacramento, California 

Case No. 70-1817______

Dear.Hr• Rivera:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator1s dismissal of your complaint in 

the above-named case.

Your request for review asserts that although the Activity 

agreed to some electioneering at authorized locations during lunch 

periods, it would not agree to consider working areas where some 

employees eat their lunches as "authorized lunch locations" for purposes of electioneering. I feel that while an Activity may furnish 

services and facilities to competing labor organizations on an impartial basis, it is under no obligation under the-Order to allow nonemployees to enter work areas for purposes of electioneering.

In regard to your charge of favoritism, the evidence discloses that all parties were allowed to initiate their formal election 

campaigns at the same time and under the same conditions. Apparently, 

your organization, by its own choice, declined to campaign until the 

unfair labor practice matter was settled.

In view of the foregoing, your request seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

V. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

89
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y •

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

February 1, 1971

Mary D. Munger, R.N.

Executive Director O O

Montana Nurses’ Association ^

227 West Lyndale 

Helena, Montana 29601

Re: Veterans Administration Center 

Fort Harrison, Montana 

Case No. 61-1180

Dear Mrs. Munger:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator’s action in dismissing as untimely your request 

to intervene in the above-named case.

Your request for review failed to show good cause for extending the 

ten (10) day intervention period, set forth in Section 202.5 of the 

regulations or raise any material issue which would warrant reversal of 

the Regional Administrator’s action.

Accordingly, your request is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

ppfl 1971

Mr. Anton E. Sperling 

Local. 1904

American Federation of Government 

Employees, (AFL-CIO)

P. 0. Box 231

Eatontown, New Jersey 07724

Re: U.S. Army Signal Center and 

School

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-1836 E.O.

Dear Mr. Sperling:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your coiaplaint in the above-named case. •

The basis of the complaint was a formal- reprimand issued 

to Mr. David Schwartz on March 31, 1970, for insubordination.

The investigation disclosed that Mr. Schwartz does not deny the 

insubordination but contends that the order'he refused to 

follow was illegal.

It is concluded that the evidence submitted is insufficient 

to establish a reasonable basis to find that the reprimand was 

issued by the Activity for any discriminatory reason prohibited 

by the Executive Order. Also it is noted that the complaint 

filed in this case contained allegations not previously contained in the charge filed against the Activity. Allegations 

newly raised in a complaint are untimely under Section 203.2 

of the Regulations and will not be considered.

The investigation further disclosed no evidence that the 

Activity refused to consult, confer or negotiate with the 

union as required by the Executive Order.

Accordingly, your request for the reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr..

Assistant Secretary of Labor

90
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

February 22, 1971

James L. Neustadt, Esq.

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government o c

Employees (AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Re: Post Exchange, U.S. Army 

Training Center 

Fort Jackson, South Carolina 

Case No'. 40-1995(CA)

Dear Mr. Neustadt:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint in 

the above-named case and have concluded that the issues presented can best be resolved on the basis of record testimony.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed 

to reinstate the complaint and to issue a Notice of Hearing in 

this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

FEB 26 1971

Mr. William M. Guerin

2918 West 46th

Kansas City, Kansas 66103

Re: Region 17, NLRB

Case No. 60-1943 (E)

Dear Mr. Guerin:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint in the above-named case.

First, I would like to point out to you that investigative procedures 

under Executive Order 11491 are quite different from those followed by the National Labor Relations Board. For instance, Section 203.2 of the Regulations 

provides that a charge must first be filed directly with the party against whom 

it is directed. The parties themselves must investigate the alleged unfair 

labor practice and make informal attempts to resolve the matter. If these 

informal attempts are unsuccessful the parties may (1 ) agree to stipulate the 

facts to the Assistant Secretary and request a decision without a hearing or 

(2) a party may file a complaint requesting the Assistant Secretary to issue 

a decision in the matter. When a complaint is filed the charging party has 

the duty, among other things, to include with it a clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practice and the entire report of the investigation by the parties.

The investigation of complaints by Area Administrators is limited, 

for the most part, to a consideration of the reports of investigation filed 

by the parties. In addition, the procedures under the Executive Order require full disclosure of all information between all parties. Once a complaint is filed, the Area Administrator determines from the parties’ reports 

of investigation whether there is a reasonable basis for the complaint and 

also whether a satisfactory offer of settlement has been made. Area Administrators do not procure information from witnesses in behalf of complainants as the problem of obtaining evidence from witnesses is a part of the 

burden of proof which lies with the complaining party. Moreover, if and when 

a notice of hearing is issued, the complainant continues to have the burden 

of proof at the formal hearing which, of course, includes the presenting of 

witnesses. You can see from the above that under the Executive Order the 

Assistant Secretary does not at any time assume the role of an advocate.

The burden of proof always remains with the charging party. Having made the 

above points, I now turn to a discussion of your case.
- 2 -

On September 16, 1970, the Regional Administrator dismissed your complaint on the basis of his conclusion that the evidence which had been submitted 

by you did not substantiate the allegations contained in your complaint and that 

over a sustained period of time you had failed to comply with repeated requests 

from the Kansas City Area Office that you submit either additional evidence or a 

statement of position. \

The file reflects that subsequent to the May 1970 filing of the complaint you submitted to the Area Office certain documentary evidence related to 

the allegations contained in your charge, but that you failed to submit a report 

of investigation as required by Sections 203.3(e) and 203.4(b) of the Regulations. 

The Area Office repeatedly advised you of the requirement that you submit a 

report of investigation and that a failure to do so might result in dismissal 

of your complaint. The dismissal letter was issued on September 16 after the 

Regional Administrator was advised by the Area Office that you had not made a 

submission as of 11:45 a.m. that day. The Regional Administrator's conclusions 

in regard to the merits of your complaint were based solely on the preliminary 

documentary evidence that you had previously submitted. When you attempted to 

tender your statement at approximately 4:20 p.m. on September 16, it was rejected on the basis that your complaint had already been dismissed.

While you were given a substantial period of time to submit your report of investigation prior to the dismissal, it appears there may have been 

some confusion as to whether the deadline was September 15 or 16.

Under all the circumstances, therefore, I am remanding your case to 

the Regional Administrator so that he may consider the matters raised by your 

complaint in the light of the evidence included in your submission of September 16. If you have not already done so, you should immediately furnish a 

copy of your submission to the Agency.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

February 26, 1971

Mr. Bruce I. Waxman 

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 37

Employees (AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: Bureau of Customs

Department of the Treasury 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

Case No. 37-834 E.O.

Dear Mr. Waxman:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your complaint in the above named case.

The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 

19(a)(5) and (6) of the Executive Order by refusing to process the 

grievances of employees Manuel Baralt and Francisco Velez-Trinidad.

The investigation reveals that the Respondant did consider the 

grievances but that there was a disagreement between the parties 

as to how the collective bargaining agreement should be interpreted. 

There was no evidence that the Respondent refused to recognize, 

consult, confer, or negotiate with the union. Therefore, there is 

no basis to find that the Respondent violated Section 19(a)(5) and 

(6) of the Executive Order.

Accordingly, your request for the reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

92
FEB 26 1971

Mr. Melvin Feinberg 

President, Branch 4754 

National Association of 

Letter Carriers 

127 Linden Avenue 

Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033

Re: U. S. Post Office Department 

Stratford, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-1795

Dear Mr. Feinberg:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Adm5.nistrator' s dismissal 

of your complaint in the above named case.

The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 

19(a(l), (2) and (4) of the Executive Order by refusing to 

process the grievance of employee Richard Torch. The investigation reveals that there has been established by the Post Office 

Department and the labor organizations representing Department 

employees on an exclusive basis a procedure for receiving 

grievances.

This brings the complaint within the meaning of Section 19(d) 

of the Executive Order which states in pertinent part: "When 

the issue in a complaint of an alleged violation of paragraph

(a)(1), (2), or (4) of this section £~19(dY^7 is subject to an 

established grievance or appeals procedure, that procedure is the 

exclusive procedure for resolving the complaint."

Accordingly, your request for the reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

MAR 1 1971

Mr. Fred R. Martin 

International Representative

American Federation of /j q

Technical Engineers 

9 Fleetwood Drive 

Sandy Hook, Connecticut 06432

Re: U. S. Naval Underwater Weapons 

and Research Engineering 

Section 

Newport, Rhode Island 

Case No. 31-3252 E.O.

Dear Mr. Martin:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of objections to conduct affecting the results of the election held among certain 

employees of the above named activity on April 24, 1970. Based 

upon a full review of the evidence submitted and positions offered by the parties, it is concluded that dismissal of the objections was warranted.

This case involves a transition from Executive Order 

10988 to Executive Order 11491 of a request for exclusive 

recognition of certain employees of the activity initiated by 

Local Rl-134, National Association of Government Employees 

(NAGE) under the former Order. In essence the objections timely 

filed by the American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, 

(AFTE) following the election on April 24, 1970, together with 

supplemental objections considered by the Regional Administrator, 

allege that procedures required by the Regulations under E. 0. 

11491 were not followed. The request for review seeks to support this contention. Further, the objections alleged that NAGE 

members were permitted to wear union lapel buttons at or near 

the polling sites of the election and that the timing of the 

consent election conference did not permit the attendance of 

additional AFTE representatives.
- 2 -

The facts disclose that following NAGE's request to the 

Activity under Executive Order 10988 for exclusive recognition 

of certain employees, negotiations between NAGE, the Activity, 

and intervenor Local 5, AFTE, resulted in the execution by the 

parties on February 12, 1970, of an election agreement on the 

form proscribed under Executive Order 10988. The agreement was 

submitted to the Acting Area Administrator, Boston Area Office 

for approval. He responded by letter to the parties advising 

them that Regulations under E.O. 11491 must be complied with, 

including the execution of an agreement for consent election on 

the form prescribed by the Assistant Secretary. On April 10,

1970, representatives of the parties executed an agreement for 

consent election which was subsequently approved by the Acting 

Area Administrator.

The record reveals that the required notices were posted 

and that both unions satisfied requirements for showing of 

interest. Further, the wait agreed to on April 10, 1970, by 

the Vice President of AFTE Local 5 was the same unit agreed to 

on February 12, 1970, by the Local's President. There were no 

challenges as to the validity of either organization's showing 

of interest filed in accordance with Section 202.2(f) of the 

Regulations and both organizations participated in the election.

The facts establish that except for minor non-prejudicial 

variances in the prescribed sequence of certain procedures, the 

substantive procedures prescribed by the Regulations were followed. 

Further, the pre-election events complained of could not affect the 

results of the election.

It is my further conclusion that the wearing by NAGE members 

and election observers of union lapel buttons, not of the campaign 

type, at or near the polling sites at the election did not constitute improper conduct affecting the conduct or the results of the 

election. In this connection, it is noted that both organizations 

were advised that the wearing of the aforementioned union buttons 

was permissible.

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside 

is denied and the Regional Administrator is directed hereby to 

have an appropriate certification of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

March 1, 1971

Mr. Alfonso Garcia

National Representative 4 Q

Local 2614, AFGE (AFL-CIO)

601 De Diego Avenue

Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico 00920

Re: Open Messes Clubs 

U.S. Naval Station 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

Case No. 37-818(EO)

Dear Mr. Garcia:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections 

to the election held in the above-named case.

Section 202.20(a) of the Regulations provides "...any party 

may file... objections to the conduct of the election or conduct 

affecting the results of the election..." The Regulations make 

no provision for the filing of objections by parties other than 

those involved in the election. A union whose name does not appear 

on the election ballot has no standing to file objections to the 

conduct of the election.

Accordingly, your request that the dismissal of AFGE's 

objections be overruled is denied and the Regional Administrator 

is hereby directed to have issued an appropriate certification of 

representative.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

94
O f p i c e o p t h u A c t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A SH IN G T O N ’, D .C . 20210

U.S.' DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Guy Colletti MAR 1 1971

National Representative 

American Federation of Government

Employees ..

512 Gallivan Boulevard 4 1

Suite 2

Dorchester. Massacnusetts 02124

Re: Naval Supply Center

Newport, Rhode Island 

Case No. 31-3256 (E0)

Dear Mr. Colletti:..

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of objections filed by the American Federation of 

Government Employees (AFL-CIO) to conduct affecting the results of the runoff election held, among certain employees of the Naval Supply Center,

Newport, Rhode island on July 14, 1970. Based upon a full review of the 

evidence submitted and positions offered by the parties, it is concluded 

that the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objections was warranted.

X have taken the position that I will not undertake to police .collateral 

election agreements which attempt to govern the conduct of the parties. In 

this connection, I have issued Report No. 20 (copy enclosed).

In regard to the case at hand, I agree with the Regional Administrator's 

finding that the distribution of free coffee on the morning of the day prioi 

to the election did not have an independent improper affect on the conduct of 

the election or the, results thereof sufficient to warrant setting the election 

aside. Accordingly, this objection is found to be without merit.

The NAGE campaign literature has been reviewed thoroughly. It appears 

that the question concerning tht> promotion of the seven Supply Center 

employees was thoroughly aired by all parties prior to the election and that 

the employees had sufficient information, to enable them to make up their own 

minds concerning who was responsible for the promotions. The other material 

you complain about would-not warrant the setting aside of the run-off election 

since the leafl'ets readily could be recognized as self-serving campaign propaganda and were not ot such a nature as to deprive the employees of their 

ability to vote intelligently on the issues.

- 2 -

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside is denied and 

the Regional Administrator is directed to have an appropriate Certification 

of Representative issued.

Sincerely,

. W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant- Secretary, of .labor
O p f j c r o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

MAR 1 1971

Mr. Bruce I. Waxman 

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 42

Employees (AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Re: Veterans Administration 

Regional Office 

Newark, New Jersey 

Case Nos. 32-1498(E0) and 

_________ 32-1499(E0)

Dear Mr. Waxman:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of objections filed by the American Federation 

of Government Employees (AFGE) to conduct affecting the results of the 

run-off election held among certain employees of the Veterans Administration Regional Office, Newark,.New Jersey on June 9, 1970. Based upon a 

full review of the circumstances surrounding the filing of the objections, 

the evidence submitted and positions offered by the parties, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objections was 

warranted.

The request for review relates to AFGE's objection alleging, in 

essence, that the content and timing of an Activity public address announcement to all unit employees less than twenty-four hours before the 

opening of the polls constituted improper conduct affecting the results 

of the election.

The evidence discloses that sometime during the workday on June 8, 

the Activity's Personnel Officer read an announcement to all employees 

over the public address system. The content of that announcement was 

devoted almost entirely to the mechanics of the election scheduled for 

the following morning. Professional employees were reminded that they 

were not to vote as "Based on the election held on May 12, 1970, exclusive recognition was granted to Local 967, NFFE, establishing a separate 

professional unit in this office." On the evening of June 8 , AFGE sent 

a telegram to the Regional Administrator protesting the announcement 

made by the Personnel Officer because, "No mention was made of (AFGE)

Local 2442 protest." It appears from the file that this was a reference 

to the fact that subsequent to the May 21 Certification of the National

- 2 -

Federation of Federal Employees as the exclusive representative in a 

separate unit of the Activity's professional employees, AFGE had sent 

the Regional Administrator a telegram stating only that they wished to 

"raise issue" with that certification. AFGE did not file objections to 

the professional unit election pursuant to the provisions of Section 

202.20(a) of the Regulations in that service was not made on the other 

parties and it did not elaborate, in writing, on its telegram "raising 

issue" with the Certification.

Section 202.20(a) of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part, 

that within five (5) days after the tally of ballots has been furnished 

any party may file with the Area Administrator an original and four (4) 

copies of objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, 

supported by a short statement of the reasons therefor. Copies of such 

objections must be served simultaneously on the other parties by the party 

filing them, and a statement of service shall be made. The above-discussed 

June 8 telegram, which was sent prior to the opening of the polls, was 

AFGE's only submission regarding the June 9 election until June 29 when 

the Regional Administrator received from it a letter detailing its belief that the June 8 announcement improperly interfered with the election. Inasmuch as AFGE did not file objections as provided for in Section 202.20(a) the Regional Administrator should have declined to consider the contentions raised in the pre-election telegraphic protest and 

the subsequent letter of elaboration. In this connection, I am enclosing 

for your information my Report No. 14.

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside is denied. 

Final disposition of the representation case must await a resolution of 

determinative challenged ballots which are not involved in the instant 

request for review.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

96
March 10, 1971

Mr. Irving I. Geller 

Director

Legal and Employee Relations 

National Federation of Federal 

Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of Army 

Corps of Engineers 

St. Paul, Minnesota 

Case No. 51-1233

Dear Mr. Geller:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint.

I agree with the Regional Administrator that the basis for the 

alleged violation of Section 19(a) (4) of Executive Order 11491 has 

not been established. As indicated by the Regional Administrator, 

the term "complaint" as used in Section 19(a) (4) refers to those written 

allegations of violations of Section 19 of the Order. Therefore, the 

grievance concerning an altercation would not constitute a "complaint" 

within the meaning of Section 19(a) (4) of the Order.

Since Mr. Leier was not disciplined or otherwise discriminated 

against for filing a "complaint" or giving testimony under the Order 

there is no reasonable basis for the complaint.

Alleged violations of Section 19(a) (1) and (2) were not filed 

as a charge with the Activity as required by Section 203.2 of the 

Regulations and therefore have not been considered.

After considering the points and arguments contained in your request 

for review, I find that the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your 

complaint on the ground that a reasonable basis for the complaint had 

not been established was correct.

Accordingly, your request seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

MAR 10 1971

Mr. Kenneth T. Lyons 

National President

National Association of a m

Government Employees 

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Defense Supply Agency .

Defense Personnel Support Center 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Case No. 20-2179

Dear Mr. Lyons:

The undersigned has received your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator’s Report on Objections to Election 

dismissing your objections to conduct affecting the results of 

the election held on November 6 , 1970.

The Regional Administrator, in his Report on Objections 

to Election January 12, 1971, served on all parties on that date 

stated that any party aggrieved by his findings may obtain a review of his decision by filing a request for review with the undersigned by the close of business January 25, 1971. Further, 

he directed the attention of the parties to Section 202.20(f) of 

the Regulations which refers aggrieved parties to Section 202.6(d) 

of the Regulations relating to the procedure for filing such requests, including the requirement that each party be served with 

a copy.

Your request for review was defective because no copy was 

served on the Regional Administrator. Enclosed herewith is a 

copy of Report No. 14 which states my position with respect to 

the service requirements contained in the Regulations.

In view of the foregoing, your request for review will 

not be considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
MAR 15 1971

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Royal L. Sims 

National Vice President 

American Federation of Government 

Employees 

4742 North Broad Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19141

Re: Frankford Arsenal

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Case No. 20-2144_________

Dear Mr. Sims:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the subject 

case.

Section 203.7(c) of the Regulations provides that when a party files 

a request for review of a Regional Administrator's dismissal of a complaint it must serve simultaneously a copy of such request on the Regional Administrator and the respondent and a statement of such service 

shall be filed with the Assistant Secretary.

The evidence in the case established ■ that in filing your request 

•for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint 

you did not comply with the service requirements contained in the Regulations in that a copy of the request was not served on the Regional *

Administrator and the request does not contain a statement of service 

reflecting that such service was made.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

MAR 15 1971

Mr. Royal L. Sims 

National Vice President

American Federation of Government 46

Employees 

4742 North Broad Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19141

Re: Frankford Arsenal

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Case No. 45-1855_________

Dear Mr. Sims:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's Report on Objections to Election dismissing 

your objections to conduct affecting the results of the election held in 

the above-named case.

Section 202.20(f) and 202.6(d) of the Regulations provide that when 

a party files a request for review of findings by a Regional Administrator 

with respect to objections to an election, "Copies of the requested review 

shall be served on the Regional Administrator and the other parties, and 

the statement of service shall be filed with the request for review."*

The evidence established that in filing your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's Report on Objections to Election, you did 

not comply with the service requirements contained in the Regulations in 

that a copy of the request was not served on the Regional Administrator, 

and further, the request does not contain a statement of service reflecting that such service was made. I have enclosed for your information a 

copy of my Report No. 14 dated October 29, 1970 which states my position 

with respect to the service requirements contained in the Regulations.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of' the objection to the election is denied and 

the certification of representative issued by the Area Administrator on 

December 4, 1970 is appropriate.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

98
U.S. D ^ P A i i T M K N I T O r L A b O R

0 ; / n a : o i : Tin: A ssista n t S .x ,\i :t a ?.y

w a s h ; x G ! 0 \ \ d . c . :o ;.io

f‘'-AR 1.7 1971

Nr. Abraham E. Freedman 

Counsellor at Law and Proctor 

in AdmiralLv 

36 Seventh Avenue

New York; New York 1001I ^ *

Attention: Mr. Stanley 3. Gruber

Re: U.S. Naval Radio Station 

Sebana Seca, Puerto Rico 

Case No. 37-836

Dear Mr. Gruber:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review on 

behalf of your client, Industrial, Technical an 3 Professional Government 

Employees Division, National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO (NMU), 

seeking reversal of the Regional Administra tor1s dismissal of the complaint 

in the above-named case.

1 agree with the Regional Administrator that a charge should have been 

filed with the Activity prior to the filing of a complaint. The regulations 

do not provide for any deviation from this procedure and I cannot agree that 

the filing of a charge woui'd', as you contend, necessarily have been a futil'e 

act.

The evidence disclosed that the Activity was delinquent in notifying 

the Department of Labor of NMU's possible interest in the petitioned for unit. 

However, NMU did request, and receive, permission to campaign at the Activity. 

The evidence on hand indicates that NMU representatives visited the Activity 

several times before, during and after the posting period. In these circumstances, I cannot find that the Activity rendered improper assistance to the 

AFGE. Further, the notice was posted conspicuously in an appropriate number 

of places as required by the regulations, and contained a statement that all 

interested parties are to seek intervention within ten days from the date of 

posting. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon employee members or adherents of 

NMU, and not the. Ac tivi ty, to have notified NMu of the petition filed by AFGE.

In this regard Section 202.4(e) of the Regulations does not require an activity 

to furnish the Area Administrator with names of organizations known to represent 

any of the employees in the claimed unit prior to the posting of the notice to 

employees.

- 2 ~

In regard to your assertion that NMU representatives were denied access to 

aroa?> where the notices were posted, the Order provides that an activity may 

furnish .services and facilities to competing labor organizations on an impartial 

basis. An activity is under no obligation under the Order to allow nonemplcyees 

access to work areas for purposes of solicitation of members or the viewing of 

posted notices.

In view of the foregoing, your request seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
0 ," 3 ::C5- o r \* ;n : A s m s t a n v S.Jv.'K -T a UY

W A S H IN G T O N , D .C . 2J/.-0

U.S. DEPARTMENT Or LABOR

MAR 1 3 1S71

David S. Barr, Esquire

Src-dhoff, Barr, Co l teaman, 4 Q

Cohen and Peer 

iOOO Connect:!cut Avenue, K.VJ.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Naval Electronic Systems 

Contend Activity 

Boston, Massachusetts

Case No. 31-3371 £0______

Dear Xr. Barr:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition in the abovenamed case.

I agree that the Regional Administrator's letter of November 24, 

1970, in which the petition filed by your client was dismissed, should 

have indicated that such action was subject to review by this office.

In regard to the merits of the cose, t.-e language of. Section 3

(b)(3) of the Executive Order which is the only issue involved in the 

request for review,, clearly states that the head of an agency, in his sole 

iudgment, may - exclude.certain segments of his organization from the 

coverage of the Order. I am of the opinion that a decision by an agency 

head under the authority'granted in Section 3(b)(3) is not subject to 

review by the Assistant Secretary under Section 6 of the Order.

In view of my above-stated opinion, an investigation into the 

merits of Secretary of the Navy's decision to exclude certain employees of 

the Naval Electronic Systems Command Activity, from coverage of the Order 

coes not appear to be appropriate.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal o-: the petition is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

March 18, 1971

Mr. James L. Neustadt 

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government Employees 4 Q

(AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: Consumer & Marketing Service 

. U. S. Department of Agriculture 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-1913(CA)

Dear Mr. Neustadt:.

The undersigned has catefully considered your .request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

the Consumer and Marketing Services’ refusal to negotiate the policy of 

rotation of assignments is a violation of Section 19(a) (6) of the Executive 

Order.

I am of the opinion that the Executive Order does not intend that 

Section 19(a) (6) of the Order be used as a procedure for determining 

disputes as to negotiability. Section 11 assigns the primary responsibility 

for such determinations to the heads of agencies and the Federal Labor 

Relations Counsil, and not to the Assistant Secretary.

Since the negotiability of the policy concerning rotation of inspectors 

has not been determined under the procedures set forth in Section 11 of 

the Executive Order, your request for the reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

100
MAR 1 8 1971

Mr. Robert L. Spldell 

Secretary Brunch No. 2S4 

National Association of Letter 

Carriers

315 Cumberland Avenue O U

Chambersburg, Pa. 17201

Re: U.S. Postal Service 

Chambersburg, pa.

Case No. 21-2282 (30)

Dear Mr. Spldell:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your complaint in the above named case.

In your request for review you take issue with the Regional 

Administrator's statement that your December 28, 1970 complaint 

was filed untimely under Section 203.2 of the Regulations. You 

point out that your complaint was filed within 30 days from the 

date your December 17, 1970 charge was filed with the Postmaster.

Also, you make the contention that there was nc reason to believe 

that a longer delay in filing the complaint "would cause any 

change in the Postmaster's attitude."

You have misread Section 203.2 of the Regulations which 

requires that a period of 30 days after filing of a charge must 

elapse before a complaint may be filed, unless a final decision 

has been received in the meantime by the charging party. During 

the 30 day period it is the intent of the Regulations that 

informal efforts be made to resolve the matter. The facts 

reveal that the Notice of Proposed Action given to you by the 

Postmaster stated that full consideration would be given to 

your reply before a decision is rendered. The Postmaster's final 

decision was rendered on January 5, 1971.

In view of the foregoing, your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W.J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O fF IC E OF TH E ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

W A SH IN G T O N , D.C. 20210

MAR 2 3 1971

Mr. Glenn D. Rahr 

President

American Federation of Government ^ *

Employees, Local 1485 ^2.

P. 0. Box 915

San Bernardino, California 92402

Re: Norton Air Force Base

San Bernardino, California 

' Case No. 72-1512

Dear Mr. Rahr:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of objections filed by American Federation of 

Government Employees (AFL-CIO) to conduct affecting the results of the runoff election held among certain employees of the Norton Air Force Base on 

July 22, 1970. Based upon a full review of the circumstances surrounding the 

conduct of the runoff election, the evidence submitted, and the positions 

offered by the parties, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator's dis 

missal was warranted.

Your allegation that NFFE was improperly aided by the Activity was 

not supported by evidence. In this connection, Section 202.20(d) of the 

Regulations provides that the objecting party shall bear the burden of proof 

regarding all matters alleged in its objections.

The evidence establishes that the complained of inaccurate press 

release concerning the outcome of the first election was adequately rectified 

prior to the balloting in the runoff election by the extensive efforts made 

by the Activity to publicize the corrected account of the previous election 

results.

Your objections regarding the eligibility of voters were all found 

to be without merit since representatives of all parties checked and approved 

the eligibility lists used in the election and provision was made for observer 

to challenge, for good cause, the eligibility of voters. Further, the two 

professional employees, Karsteter and Matsunaga, who ,were erroneously included 

on the eligibility list were each on assignment away from the Activity on the 

day of the election and neither cast a ballot.
- 2 -

In view of all Che circumstances, I agree with the Regional 

Administrator's finding that the election- should not be set aside because or 

the offices held by Messrs. Henke and Poupitch and Mrs. Kendall.

The publicity given to the election through the posting of Notices 

of Election in over 100 locations and through accounts in news media both on 

and off the base, I find to have been adequate. Further, allegations or 

improper conduct relating to the first election held on June 24, 1970 should 

have been filed immediately after that election as required by Section 202.20 

(a) of' the Regulations. They cannot be advanced now as a cause for setting 

aside the runoff election. Moreover, events that occurred after the runoff 

election could not have affected the results of the runoff election and 

accordingly, cannot be considered as a basis for setting the election aside.

Accordingly,, your request that the election be set aside is denied 

and the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate 

certification of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O i ;h c e o f TH ii A s s i s t a n t S k c r i j t a r y 

W A SH IN G TO N , D .C. 20210

MAR 3 0 1971

Mr. Manuel Donabedian 

Executive Director 

National Association of Government 

Employees 

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Veterans Administration 

Hospital 

Butler, Pennsylvania 

Case No. 21-2205

Dear Mr. Donabedian:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition 

in the above-named case and have concluded that the issues 

presented can best be resolved on the basis of record 

testimony.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed 

to reinstate the petition and to resume the processing of 

the case.

Sincerely,

V. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

102
APR 7 1971

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. N. T. Wolkomir 

President

National Federation of trq

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration 

Hospital 

East Orange, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-1803

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed by NFFE Local 1154 in the 

above-named case. Based upon a full review of the evidence submitted and 

the positions offered, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the petition was warranted.

With respect to the Regional Administrator's refusal to dismiss the 

petition of AFGE, Local 2735, I have ruled in Report No. 8 , issued on 

August 19, 1970 (copy enclosed) that the Regulations make no provisions 

for the filing of a request for review of a Regional Administrator's action 

in refusing to dismiss a petition.

As to the dismissal of the petition for amendment of certification 

filed by NFFE, Local 1154, on October 30, 1970, I find such action to be 

appropriate since prior to NFFE's petition, AFGE had filed a petition in 

the same unit which raised a question concerning representation.

In regard to your allegations that the hospital management was not 

impartial, I find that a request for review of a Regional Administrator's 

action in dismissing a petition is not the appropriate proceeding in which 

to raise what appears to be an alleged unfair labor practice.

In view of the foregoing, and noting that your organization participated fully in the representation hearing in Case No. 32-1793, your request 

seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition 

of Local 1154 is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O F F I C E O F T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W ASHINGTON

A P R 7 1971

Carl Dwight, President 

OFT, Local 1551 

Kaiserslautern Chapter 

Kaiserslautern American High School 

APO New York 09227

Re: Kaiserslautern American 

High School 

APO Nev) York 

Case No. 46-ISO?(CA)

Dear Mr. Dwight:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review' 

of the Regional Administrator*s dismissal of your complaint in the 

above-named-case.

.While your request lor review was untimely filed as provided for 

in Section 203.7(c) of the Regulations, the file reflects that the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal letter w&s not received by you in 

Germany until after~the deadline for filing a request for review. Your 

request for review was mailed by you the day after receipt of the dismissal letter. In view of these circumstances and in accord with the 

provisions of Section 205,7 of the Regulations, I have accepted your 

request for consideration.

The Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint was based, 

in essence, on a conclusion that inasmuch as representation petitions 

had been filed seeking elections in units which might include the 

facility involved herein, the Activity had no duty to bargain pending 

resolution of the representation issue. Your request for review 

asserts, in pertinent part, that the Regional Administrator had failed 

to take note of the fact that Local 1551 was the exclusive representative at the facility and, therefore, arguably excluded from the units 

involved in the representation cases, and further, that the raising o f

a question concerning representation does not mean that an unfair labor 

practice no longer exists.

103
On the basis of the allegations and the record in the case I find 

that there exists a reasonable basis for the complaint and there does' 

not appear to have been any satisfactory offer of settlement. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to reinstate the complaint, 

and absent satisfactory offer of settlement, issue complaint in this 

matter.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

DEC 2 1 1970

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Harold 0. Clemens 

President, Local 1437

National Federation of Federal Employees 

Mostyn Road, Mt. Fern 

Dover, New Jersey

Dear Mr. Clemens:

I have carefully considered your appeal of the Regional Administrator's 

action in dismissing as untimely your request to intervene in Picatinny 

Arsenal, Case No. 32-1798 E.O. and have concluded that the appeal fails to 

show good cause for extending the ten (1 0) day intervention period set 

forth in Section 202.5 of the Regulations nor does it raise any material 

issue which would warrant reversal of the Regional Administrator^ action. 

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your request to 

intervene is sustained.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

104
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 13 1971

Mr. Victor Rosario 

President

Armed Forces Employees in

Puerto Rico c o

Local 2614, AFGE (AFL-CIO) ^

601 De Diego

Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico 00920

Re: Department of Navy

Roosevelt Roads Naval Base 

Case Nos. 37-768 and 37-775

Dear Mr. Rosario:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of all 

objections filed by American Federation of Government Employees, 

Local 2614 (AFL-CIO) to the conduct of an election held among 

certain employees of the Activity on July 14, 1970,

Your first ground for reversal of the Regional Administrator that a hearing was not afforded Local 2614 in order "to 

amplify and expound its objection to the validity of the election... 1 must be rejected. Hearings are not granted as a 

matter of right but, under Section 202.20(d) of the Assistant 

Secretary's regulations, are ordered where the Regional Administrator finds that the objections raise a "relevant question 

of fact which may have affected the results of the election..."

In the circumstances of this case, a relevant question of fact 

was not raised and therefore no hearing is required.

Your second ground is that the Area Administrator's investigation was insufficient and that he should have disqualified himself from investigation of the case "since he was a 

party to the election proceedings." I find that the investigation of the Area Administrator in this case was sufficient. 

Moreover, no basis for disqualification exists since under the 

Assistant Secretary's regulations, an Area Administrator is 

charged with the responsibility of both supervising elections 

and investigating objections.

- 2 -

Your third ground is that the Area Administrator failed 

to give your local union a chance "to refute his findings before 

submitting his report for adjudication." As there is no requirement for the procedure you suggest, I must reject this contention.

Your fourth and final ground is that the Area Administrator's 

findings of fact "although incomplete, are sufficient to warrant 

setting aside the objected elections.". From the review made of 

the case file, I must also reject this objection. The Regional 

Administrator (incorrectly referred to by you as the Area Administrator) examined the evidence submitted by you and determined 

that all objections were without merit. I agree with his conclusion.

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside 

is denied and the Regional Administrator is directed hereby to 

issue an appropriate certification of representative.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

105
A P R 2 6 1971

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Kenneth T. Lyons 

National President

National Association of Government 5 7

Employees 

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Department of Defense 

Department of the Army 

White Sands Missile Range 

Case No. 63-2273

Dear Mr. Lyons:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your 

objections to the election held in the above named case on 

October 28, 1970.

Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations, which is made applicable to situations involving requests for review of findings by a 

Regional Administrator with respect to objections to an election, 

provides, in part, that "Copies of the requested review shall be 

served on the Regional Administrator and the other parties, and 

statement of service shall be filed with the request for review.

The evidence establishes that the Regional Administrator 

was not served with a copy of your request for review. Accordingly, inasmuch as your request for review was imperfect, it is denied, and the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to proceed 

consistent with his Report and Findings on Objections.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 26 1971

Mr. John Garnett

Acting Director of Personnel 58-

U. S. Department of Interior 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D.C. 20240

Re: Department of Interior

Bureau of Land Management 

Sacramento, California 

Case No. 70-1583

Dear Mr. Garnett:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator's action in overruling all of 

the objections in the above named case.

The Regional Administrator, in his Ruling on Objections 

to Election, December 18, 1970, served on all parties on that date, 

stated that any party believing itself aggrieved by his rulings may 

appeal the same to the Assistant Secretary following the procedures 

set forth in Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations. This Section relates to procedures for filing such requests, including the requirement that copies of the requested review shall be served on the 

Regional Administrator and the other parties, and statement of service shall be filed with the request for review.

Your request for review was defective because no statement 

of service was filed with the request for review. Further, the case 

record reveals no indication that the Petitioner was served a copy 

of your request for review. Enclosed herewith is a copy of Report 

No. 14 which states my position with respect to the service requirements contained in the Regulations.

In view of the foregoing, your request for review will not 

be considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

106
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 26 1971

Mr. Percy A. Hull

Administrative Aide e:q

J3t..'Petersburg, Postal Union 

2706 Miriam Street South 

St. Petersburg, Florida 33711

Re: Post Office Department 

St. Petersburg, Florida 

Post Office 

Case No. 42-1203

Dear Mr. Hull:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal 

of your complaint in the above named case.

In his letter of dismissal of your complaint the Regional 

Administrator referred to Section 203.7 of the Regulations implementing Executive Order 11491, which permits the filing of a request for review within 10 days of the dismissal notice. Due to 

an incorrect address on the letter addressed to you which delayed 

delivery until November 7, 1970, the Regional Administrator, at 

your request, extended the time for filing a Request for Review 

with the undersigned to close of business on November 30, 1970.

The evidence reveals that you did not mail the Request for 

Review in this matter and a copy of same to the Regional Administrator until November 30, 1970 and that it was not received in the 

office of the undersigned until December 3, 1970. Section 205.1 

of the Assistant Secretary’s regulations provides, in part, that 

when papers are required to be filed they must be received by the 

Assistant Secretary before the close of business of the last day 

of the time limit for such filing. As noted above, your request 

for review in the subject case which was required to be filed by 

the close of business on November 30, 1970, was not received by 

the Assistant Secretary until December 3, 1970.

- 2 -

In these circumstances, your request seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint is considered to be untimely and is therefore denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

107
O f f i c e o f t u b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 22, 1971

Mr. Gordon P. Ramsey g Q

Gadsby & Hannah

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-2145

Dear Mr. Ramsey:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's action in overruling your challenge 

to status of a labor organization and adequacy and validity of showing of 

interest.

You question the status of National Association of Air Traffic 

Specialists, Petitioner in the.above named case, as a labor organization 

within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Executive Order 11491. You also 

challenge the adequacy and validity of the Petitioner's showing of interest.

Since the Regulations make no provision for review of a Regional 

Administrator's action dismissing challengers to the status of a labor 

organization or to the adequacy or validity of the showing of interest of 

a labor organization, your request for review will not be considered.

Accordingly, your request that Petitioner be declared not to be a 

labor organization and that its petition be dismissed is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Mr. N. T. Wolkomir 

President

National Federation of Federal o j

Employees 

1737 H street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: DHEtV-Public Health Service 

Indian Hospital 

Albuquerque, New Mexico' 

Case No. 63-2327

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review* and supporting memorandum seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's'determination overruling an objection to the 

conduct of an election.

In your submission you do not question the accuracy of the 

tally of the ballots but you suggest that, on the basis of the 

tally in this case, the professional employees should be granted 

the right to exclusive representation in a separate unit of 

professionals. It is clear from an examination of the election 

documents in this case, including the consent election agreement, 

the notices posted and the ballots used, that a majority of the 

ten professionals who voted for union representation did so only 

after expressing their desire to be included in n unit with nonprofessional employees. Thus, their ballots were commingled with 

those of the non-professionals and the tally of ballots, as you 

concede, shows that exclusive recognition was rejected by a 

majority of those voting. You contend that, "if they had known 

that the no union vote would be -ruled to^prevail, it is reasonable 

to believe that they would have voted for a separate unit." Under 

the voting procedures established by the Assistant Secretary in 

elections involving professional and non-professional employees, 

when professional employees vote for inclusion in a unit with 

non-professional employees, their votes as to whether or not they 

desire union representation are pooled with those of non-professional 

employees. Once inclusion with non-professional employees has 

been voted for b y the professional-employees, the vote in the
-2-

oomblned unit of professional and non-professional employees 

is determinative as to union representation without repaid 

to the separate desires of the included professional employees.

In these circumstances your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of your objection to the election is denied.

Sincerely,

v. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 28 1971

Mr. William J. Revak 

President, Branch 908 

National Association of Letter

Carriers ***"

278 Stanford Avenue 

Wenonah, New Jersey 08090

Re: Post Office Department 

Philadelphia, Pa.

Case No. 32-1781

Dear Mr. Revak:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the above named case.

In your request for review you contend that you did not 

refuse a satisfactory settlement offer in the case contrary to the 

assertion made by the Regional Administrator upon dismissal of your 

complaint.

From a review made of the case file it appears that the 

Postmaster at Woodbury did withdraw the "adverse action" letter 

mentioned in your complaint and that he was instructed to abide 

by the National agreement with National Association of Letter 

Carriers. You concede that these steps were taken but contend 

that the Activity failed to meet two additional requirements:

(1 ) that your personnel file be expunged of previous unfounded 

letters of warning and proposed adverse action and (2) that the 

Philadelphia Region of the Post Office Department be required to 

admit that the Postmaster at Woodbury "violated the Code of Fair 

Labor Practices in this matter."

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

that a satisfactory settlement offer was refused by you and that 

the failure to meet your additional requirements does not render 

the offered settlement unsatisfactory.

In view of the foregoing your request for reversal of 

the Regional Administratorfs dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 28, .1971

Mr. Daniel J. Kearney 

National Vice President 

American Federation of Government 

Employees 

512 Gallivan Boulevard - Suite 2 

Dorchester, Massachusetts 02124

63

Re: Department of the Air Force 

Electronics System Division 

L. G. Hanscon Field

• Bedford, Massachusetts 

Case No. 31-3338 E.O.

Dear Mr. Kearney:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the 

objections filed in the above named case.

The Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on 

Objections, dated February 2, 1971, advised the parties as 

follows:

Pursuant to Section 202.20(f) of the 

Regulations of the Assistant Secretary an 

aggrieved party may obtain a review of 

this action by filing a request for review 

with the Assistant Secretary with a copy 

served upon me and each of the parties 

to the proceeding and a statement of 

service filed with the request for review 

(emphasis added).

Section 202.20(f) of the Regulations refers aggrieved 

parties to Section 202.8(d) of the Regulations relating to the 

procedure for filing such requests, including the requirement 

that a copy of the request for review shall be served on the 

Regional Administrator.

Your request for review was defective because no copy 

was served on the Regional Administrator. In view of the

-2-

foregoing, your request will not be considered, and the 

Regional Administrator is hereby directed to proceed 

consistent with his Report and Findings on Objections.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

110
April 30, 1971

Mr. Dolph David Sand 

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 64

Employees (AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Re: U. S. Navy Autodin Switching Center 

U. S. Marine Corps Supply Center 

Albany, Georgia 

Case No. 40-2608 (RC)

Dear Mr. Sand:

I have considered carefully your reqest for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed 

by American Federation of Government Employees, (AFL-CIO),

Local 2317.

Your request for review is based upon the single ground 

that the employees petitioned for were not disqualified from 

representation in accordance with Section 3(b)(3) of Executive 

Order 11491 because the notice disqualifying the employees 

was signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy rather than 

by the Secretary of the Navy. In these circumstances, you 

contend that an Assistant Secretary of the Navy is not "the 

head of the agency" within the meaning of Section 3(b)(3) of 

the Order.

I view the evidence as being insufficient to establish 

that the decision to exclude the employees in question from 

the coverage of the Order was not made by the Secretary of the 

Navy. In this regard, I have been advised that the decision 

to exclude was made by the Secretary of the Navy. Further, the 

notice in question, titled SECNAVNOTE 12721, was issued from 

the office of the Secretary of the Navy on his letterhead.

Based upon a full consideration of the facts it is my 

conclusion that the requirements of Section 3(b)(3) of the 

Executive Order have been satisfied.

Accordingly, your request that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of your petition be reversed is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f F e d e r a l L a b o r - M a n a g k m e n t R e l a t i o n s 

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20210

April 30, 1971

Mr. Ronald A. Ogden 

Area Director of Organization 

American Federation of Government 

Employees 

5515 Livingston Road, Room 201 

Qxon Hill, Maryland 20021

Re: U. S. Army Transportation Center 

Fort Eustis, Virginia 

Case No. 22-1745 (EO)

Dear Mr. Ogden:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of objections 

to conduct affecting the results of the election held ajnong 

certain employees of the above named Activity on August 26, 1970.

You contend in your request for review that the Regional 

Administrator was in error by not considering in his Report on 

Objections to Election a leaflet distributed by the National 

Association of Government Employees, and on allegation concerning 

an attempted bribe. The evidence is clear that these matters 

were not presented in a timely and proper manner as required by 

Sections 202.20(a) and 205,1 of the Regulations. Accordingly, 

the refusal of the Regional Administrator to consider these matters 

was warranted.

Based upon a full review of the evidence submitted and 

positions taken by the parties, it is concluded that the dismissal of 

Objections 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 by the Regional 

Administrator was warranted.

With respect to Objections 4 and 5, it is concluded that 

the appeal raises issues which can best be resolved on the basis 

of record testimony. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is 

directed to issue promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

i n
O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON', D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 3 0 197T

Mr. Dolph David Sand 

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government £ £

Employees 

400 First Street,. N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: U.S. Department of Navy

Naval Communications Station 

Norfolk, Virginia 

Case No. 22-1928 (32)

Dear Mr. Sand:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's 

decision that the appropriate unit in the above named case 

would exclude "employees whose position require cryptographic 

authority" pursuant to Section 3 (b) (3) .of the Executive 

Order; and your Motion for Enlargement of Time.

The Acting Regional Administrator, in his decision 

letter dated December 18, 1970, served on all parties on 

that date, stated that a review of his action could be obtained 

pursuant to Section 202.6 (d) of the Regulations, by filing 

a request for review with the undersigned by the close of 

business December 31, 1970. Your request for review was 

received on February 11, 1971, together with the Motion for 

Enlargement of Time. The motion requests that the time for 

filing your request for review be extended from December 31, 1970, 

to February 11, 1971.

Under all the circumstances, your.request for review in 

this matter was not considered to have been timely filed within 

the meaning of Section 202.6 (d) of the regulations. Accordingly, your request for review and Motion for Enlargement of 

Time is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O j t j c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S i x r e t a r y 

Wa s h in g t o n , d .c . 20210

APR 3 0 197!

Mr. J. Gene Raymond 

President, Local 1G23 

National Federation of Fedoral

Employees ^ *

114 South Edisto Avcnuo 

Columbia, South Carolina 29203

Re: South Carolina Air National 

Guard

McEntire AFD, South Carolina 

Caso No. 40-2277. (C4)

Dear Mr. Raymond:

The undersigned- has considered carefully your reauest 

for review seeking reversal of the, Regional Administrator’s 

dismissal of your complaint in the above named case.

The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 

19(a)(G) of tho Executive Order in that it refuses to meet 

in negotiating sessions at "reasonable tim^s" within tho 

meaning of Section 11 of tho Executive Order.

The investigation revealed that Respondent has offered 

to meet in negotiating sessions four days each week from 9:00 a.n. 

to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. It is concluded that while Section 20 v.’ould not .prohibit the Respondent 

from voluntarily agreeing to the Complainant’s hours for 

negotiation, there is no evidence that the Respondent acted 

in bad faith or refused to comply with the requirement of 

meeting at reasonable times referred to in Section 11 oC the 

Executive Order. Such conduct, therefore, is not viewed as 

being inconsistent with Section 19(a)(6) of the Order.

Accordingly,.your request for the reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of tho complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

J. Usory, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

112
Mr. Gordon P. Ramsey 

Gadsby & R&nnah

1700 Pennsylvania,Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Ro: Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 

Case No. 22-2145 (R0)

Dear Mr* Ramsey;

This will acknowledge receipt of your notion dated 

April 26, 1971 asking for reconsideration of my decision of 

April 22, 1971, denying a request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's decision of March 19, 1971. I must 

deny your motion for reconsideration.

The above named case raised the question whether a 

challenge to the status of a labor organization can be reviewed 

under Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations which relates to 

dismissals of representation petitions. On the other hand, 

Charleston Naval Shipyard Case No. 40-1926 (RO) which you cite 

as inconsistent, Involved a challenge of a labor organization 

based on alleged violations of the standards of conduct. 

Procedures for enforcing the standards of conduct established * 

by Section 18 of Executive Order 11491 are set forth In Part 

204 of the Regulations.

Por your Information I enclose a copy of my letter of 

October 16, 1970, which points up the distinctions between the 

two sections of the Regulations and additionally a copy of 

Report Ho. 9 based upon the Charleston decision,

I view my decision denying a motion to strike a 

reply brief filed in Norfolk Naval Shipyard Case No. 46-1617 

as being within my discretion under the Regulations and in no 

sense in conflict with my denial of the request for review In 

the subject case.

Sincerely,

68

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

May 10, 1971

Mr. Elihu I. Leifer 69

Sherman, Dunn & Cohen

1200 15th Street, N. W., Suite 500

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Defense Supply Agency 

Tracy, California 

Case No. 70-1546

Dear Mr. Leifer:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of objections filed 

by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2289, 

AFL-CIO, (IBEW), to conduct affecting the results of the 

election held among certain employees of the Defense Supply 

Agency at Tracy, California on September 3, 1970. Based upon 

a full review of your objections to the election in the subject 

case and the evidence supplied in support thereof, it is 

concluded that the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the 

objections was warranted.

The objections as filed set out four counts. The first 

three, similar in content, allege that the Activity’s approval 

of distribution of anti-IBEW literature by certain of the 

Activity's employees influenced employees to vote against the 

IBEW and allowed a campaign against the IBEW "to exist and work 

to the detriment" of that labor organization. The facts disclose 

that the literature distributed, some by permission of the 

Activity, was not beyond proper bounds in its content and was 

not sponsored or endorsed by the Activity. Moreover, approval 

by the Activity of the distribution of such literature was not 

improper.

In this latter respect, I refer you to my decision in 

Charleston Naval Shipyard and Federal Employees Metal Trades 

Council, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, A/SLMR No. 1, issued 

November 3, 1970. In that case I found that, absent special 

circumstances, a Federal agency or activity may not prohibit 

employee distribution of literature on behalf of a labor organization in nonwork areas during nonwork time since such a prohibition interfered with employee rights assured under Executive
Order 11491. As stated in Section 1(a) of the Order, the rights 

assured employees include the right to refrain from activity on 

behalf of a labor organization. In these circumstances, I find 

that employees have the right to express and disseminate their 

views freely in an election campaign and are not prohibited from 

distributing literature based solely on the fact that it is 

unfavorable to a particular labor organization. Further, agencies 

and activities should not, as a general rule, be required to 

censor, police or pass upon the truth or falsity of electioneering 

propaganda distributed by competing labor organizations or employees.

The fourth ground of the objections was that one employee 

could not cast her ballot because she was misinformed by a supervisor as to where she could vote. I find no merit in this objection 

because notices of the election amply informed eligible voters 

concerning the time and places of the election. Further, there 

was no evidence presented that the alleged misdirection by a 

supervisor was intentional or calculated to interfere with the 

election results or that the employees' vote would have affected 

the results of the election.

Your request for review contains certain additional 

allegations advanced for the first time and not found in the 

objections filed with the Acting Area Administrator on September 11,

1970. I have ruled previously that allegations of objectionable 

conduct affecting the results of an election contained in a request 

for review and not contained in the objections initially filed are 

untimely and will not be considered. For your information, I 

enclose a copy of Report Number 22 which relates to this point.

Accordingly, your request that the election be set aside 

is denied and the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to 

have an appropriate certification of the results of the election 

issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O j t i c e o p T in ; A s s i s t a n t S i x r u t a r y 

W a s h in g to n , d.c. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT O f LABOR

\sn

Mr. Neal H. Fine

Assistant to the.Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government n n

Employees (AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Soil Conservation Service 

Case No. 35^5^1-zE^.

c # 0y

Dear Mr. Fine:

I have considered carefully your request for review of.tho 

Regional Administrator's denial of the petition to intervene filed 

by American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1377 '‘AFGE” 

in the above named case.

AFGE was advised by the Regional Administrator in his 

letter of April 1, 1971 denying the petition to intervene that 

the petition was untimely because not received before the clos^i 

of business on March 29, 1971 which was the last day of the 

10th day time limit for filing.

In your request for review you concede that the petition 

was not received by the Regional Administrator until March 31,

1971 .but' you contend that it was nonetheless timely bccause 

it was mailed and postmarked on March 29, 1971 which was the 

last day of the 10th day filing period. You allege that 

"similat petitions to the Department of Labor postmarked on 

the last day of tfye time limit" have been accepted as ti:no;.y 

and you attach a signed statement of a national representative 

of AFGE referring to a specific case where' such a petition 

to intervene postmarked on the last day is alleged to hove 

been accepted as timely filed by the Chicago Area Administrator.

I have administratively determined that the petition referred 

to was actually timely filed.

114
Our investigation discloses that in the case referred to 

by the national representative of AFGE, the petition to intervene 

was postmarked on the 8th day of the intervention period ar.d 

would have been received in the Area Office on the Oth day 

in normal course except that the 9th day fell on July 3, 1070 

which was a federal holiday. Actual receipt on July 6, i970 

was, therefore, timely following the computation.procedure found 

in Section 205.1 of the Regulations. However, regardless of 

whether instances may be found where late petitions to intervene 

were inadvertently or erroneously accepted as timely, if is 

clear in the present case that the filing was not timely under 

Section 202.5(c) of the Regulations.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the Regional Adrrdnistrator1 s decision denying the petition to 

intervene is'denied.

Sincerely,

W. J; Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

William B. Peer, Esq.

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman,

Cohen & Peer 71

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

New York. Air Route Traffic 

Control Canter 

Case No. 30-3213 E. O.

Dear Mr. Peer:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator's denial of PATCO, NYARTCC 

Chapter's request to intervene in the above-named case.

In all the circumstances, I conclude that the Regional Administrator's action was proper. Ulus, in the PATCO decision. A/SLMR 

No. 10, I stated that,

"until such time as the Professional Air Traffic 

Controller's Organization, Inc., affiliated with 

the National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO (PATCO-MEBA) can demonstrate 

to my satisfaction that it has complied with my 

Decision and Order, and that it will comply in 

the future with the provisions of the Executive 

Order, I shall not permit It to utilize the procedures available to a labor organization within 

the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Executive 

Order." '(emphasis added)

The above statement clearly indicates that to permit intervention in the subject case by a chapter of PATCO-MEBA at a time 

when there has been no finding by the Assistant Secretary of compliance with the Decision and Order in A/SLMR No. 10 would be

115
- 2 -

inconsistent with that Daclsion and Order. With respcct lo your 

contention that.footnote S in A/S'LiviR No. 10 provides a lxisi? {or 

intervention in this-matter, it should be noted that this footnote, 

whieh states in pertinent part that "Recognitions granted to PATCO 

under Executive Order 10333 are not affected by this Order., 

is applicable to that portion of the body of the Docislon and Order 

which states that pending PATCO-iviEEA petitions will be dismissed. 

In this context, the import of footnote 5 was to indicate that the 

Decision and Order dismissing ponding FATCC-MEBA petitions was 

not, of itself, intended to af/oCt existing recognitions; On the 

other hand, consistory witli the above-cited language of the 

Decision and Order denying to PATCO-fcSEEA the utilization of tho 

Executive Order's procedures until such tirr.a as there''lias been a 

finding of compliance, interventions ’and other participation by 

PAICO-MEBA in any subsequently filsfd cases under Executive 

Order. 11491 was clearly prohibited during the compliance period 

irrespective of any challenge pose.d to existing representative 

status by PATCO-,VJSBA.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of tho Regional Administrator's dismissal of your motion to intervene in the subject case 

is denied .

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Hay 17, 1971

Mr. Daniel B. Marable 

President, National Association

of Government Employees, Local R3-36 72

Aviation Supply Office 

700 Robbins Avenue 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111

Re: Aviation Supply Office 

Philadelphia, Pa.

Case No. 20-2071

Dear Mr. Marable:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your 

objections to the runoff election held in the above named case 

on September 24, 1970.

The first objection alleges that representatives of 

the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) violated 

provisions of a side agreement between the parties in regard 

to election campaigning in that they commenced election 

campaigning prior to the date agreed to in the side agreement.

My policy with respect to policing such side agreements is 

set out in Report No. 20 (copy enclosed). As it is found that 

this alleged conduct did not have an independent improper 

effect on the results of the runoff election, the action of 

the Regional Administrator in rejecting this objection was 

warranted.

The second objection alleges that AFGE distributed 

election campaign material believed to be violative of Executive 

Order 11491. This consisted of material taken from an arbitration hearing on a unit question under Executive Order 10988, 

and a cartoon caricaturing the President of Local R3-36,

NAGE. This material was distributed on the morning of the day 

prior to the runoff election, and is alleged to have been 

slanderous and defamed the character of the local president. 

Also, it is alleged that the literature contained quotations 

which were taken out of context and thus created a false 

impression of the testimony given on behalf of NAGE. It is 

noted that there is no allegation that the quoted material was 

erroneous.

116
-2-

The case record indicates that no evidence was submitted 

which would show that the campaign material gave a false 

impression of the testimony, or affected the results of the 

election. A careful review of the campaign material persuades 

me that it could be properly evaluated by the employees as 

permissible campaign propaganda, and, therefore, would not 

be grounds for setting aside the election. Therefore, the 

action of the Regional Administrator in rejecting this objection 

was warranted.

The request for review contained new allegations of 

improper conduct by AFGE representatives on the day of the 

runoff election. Since these allegations were not included 

with the timely filed objections, .and in accord with Report 

No. 22 (copy enclosed), these allegations are found to be 

untimely and will not be considered.

Based on the foregoing, your request that the election 

be set aside is denied and the Regional Administrator is hereby 

directed to have an appropriate certification of representative 

issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

\

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 21, 1971

Mr. Nathan T. Wolkomir 

President

National Federation of Federal tjf*

Employees ^

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Amarillo, Texas 

Case No. 63-2176

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of all 

objections filed by the National Federation of Federal Employees, 

Local 1138 (NFFE) to conduct of the election or conduct affecting 

the results of the election held among certain employees of the 

Activity on September 30, 1970.

Objection a

Objection a contains eight allegations which the NFFE 

claims show that the Activity was biased and prejudiced in favor 

of the Intervenor, the American Federation of Government Employees 

(AFGE).

Objection a(l) alleges that although NFFE filed a RO 

petition the first week of July 1970, AFGE continued to retain 

all the privileges of an exclusive representative, and that NFFE 

was denied these privileges for most of the time during the "open 

season.” The investigation reveals that AFGE had an exclusive 

agreement with the Activity that began on July 8, 1966, and was 

due to expire on October 2, 1970. As a result of this agreement 

AFGE was furnished office space, allowed to use bulletin boards; 

and was furnished space for meetings. The evidence discloses 

that an election campaign agreement was signed by both unions on 

September 15, 1970, and amended on September 25, 1970, which 

provided equal opportunity for election campaigning to both 

unions. No evidence was submitted that shows AFGE received preferential treatment from the Activity that affected the results 

of the election due to its status as the exclusive representative 

of the employees in the unit, and no objectionable conduct is 

found in regard to this allegation.
-2-

Objection a(2) alleges that on September 11, 1970, 

a newsletter was circulated to non-duty employees by NFFE, and 

that subsequently the local president of NFFE was directed by 

letter "to cease and desist from distributing NFFE Local 1138 

material on VA property." The investigation reveals that on 

September 10, 1970, employees of the Activity who were members 

of NFFE, placed newsletters in mail slots in a ward of the hospital. 

These newsletters were removed by management. NFFE protested 

this action by letter dated September 10, 1970. On September 11, 

1970, the Personnel Officer of the Activity answered in writing 

the NFFE letter of September 10, 1970. This Activity letter 

contained the "cease and desist" language referred to in this 

objection, and will'be considered in Objection a(5) where this 

letter is the subject of an objection.

The circulation of a newsletter to employees on 

September 11, 1970, by employees of the Activity who were members 

of NFFE is the basis for this objection. The case file reveals 

that local officers of NFFE were observed distributing NFFE 

newsletters on Activity premises on September 11, 1970. They 

were orally notified by the Personnel Officer that such distribution was improper and would not be permitted on hospital premises 

unless authorized by a campaign agreement.

A prohibition on employee electioneering on activity 

premises until an election agreement was established was ruled 

on by the undersigned in Charleston Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 1.

The Charleston decision was issued on November 3, 1970, and the 

Report and Findings on Objections by the Regional Administrator 

in this case was issued on December 23, 1970. As the Regional 

Administrator's Report does not indicate that the Charleston 

decision was considered in making his determination regarding 

this objr-tion, I shall remand the case to him for his consideration 

as to win"”, if feet, if any, the Charleston decision would have on 

the conduct alleged in this objection.

Objection a(3) alleges the Petitioner was denied a 

meeting place on September 10, 1970, while at the same time AFGE 

had an office space with no restrictions on meetings. The investigation discloses that AFGE had been authorized business office 

space early in 1970, but this space was revoked on September 15, 

1970, due to the fact that the Activity could not provide comparable space to NFFE as requested. The Activity noted in a letter 

dated September 24, 1970, to NFFE that the two meetings held by 

AFGE since NFFE had filed its petition, and which NFFE had protested, were regular monthly business meetings of AFGE. It is 

noted in the election campaign agreement dated September 15, 1970, 

that both unions were authorized to have one meeting and to use 

the same conference room on Activity property prior to the 

election. No objectionable conduct is found in regard to this 

allegation.

-3-

Objection a(4) alleges NFFE was not provided access 

to all employees as.indicated in Exhibit No. 3. Exhibit No. 3 

is a letter "To Whom Concerned" signed by a national representative of NFFE. The representative states he saw employees 

leaving work by an exit not covered as a distribution point 

for distributing election campaign literature. The parties 

signed the original election campaign agreement on September 15,

1970, which provided that election campaign literature could 

be distributed on September 24, 25, 28, and 29, 1970 at two 

identified locations. After a complaint about the agreement 

from NFFE, it was amended on September 25, 1970, adding two 

more places for campaign material distribution on September 28, 29,

1970. As both'* of these election campaign agreements were signed 

by the presidents of both local unions, and as both unions were 

afforded equal rights, no merit is found to the allegation.

Objection a(5) alleges that management failed to 

initiate adverse action against the person or persons who 

removed NFFE's news letter from mail slots as indicated in 

Exhibit No. 4, and that the local president of NFFE received 

unjust criticism as indicated by Exhibit No. 1.

The case file shows that Exhibit No. 1 is the Activity 

letter referred to in Objection a(2). In part, this letter 

states, "You are herewith directed to cease and desist from 

distributing NFFE Local 1138 material on VA property." This 

same letter made -it clear that NFFE was to stop campaigning 

only until election campaign arrangements were agreed to by 

all parties at a meeting which had already been scheduled 

within three days of the date of the letter.

It is noted that this letter contains a broad 

prohibition on the distribution of NFFE material on Activity 

premises, even though the ban was to be effective only for a 

short period of time. As a result, I conclude that this 

conduct should be considered in light of the Charleston 

decision, for a determination as to what effect, if any, that 

decision may have on the conduct alleged in this objection.

Objection a(6) alleges that prior to a NFFE letter 

to the Activity dated September 21, 1970, NFFE was forced to 

process payroll deductions for new NFFE members by mail in 

conflict with the Federal Personnel Manual. The Activity 

categorically denied this allegation, but in any event, no 

relationship is found between the method of processing payroll deductions for union members and the conduct of the 

election. Therefore, no improper conduct affecting the 

results of the election is found in regard to this allegation.

118
-4-

Objection a(7) alleges that since NFFE filed its 

petition, new employees have reported to NFFE that the 

Personnel Division has been biased in favor of AFGE as the 

employees' representative. The case record reveals that 

the conduct relied upon in support of this objection was 

required to be done by the contract in effect between the 

Activity and AFGE, and it is further found that there was 

no objectionable conduct in regard to this objection that 

affected the results of the election.

Objection a(8) alleges that despite assurance from 

the Activity at the time of the election campaign agreement 

that all markings for AFGE on department bulletin boards would 

be removed, the red tape which had become a recognized portion 

of AFGE markings was not removed. The investigation reveals 

that the last sentence under paragraph 1 of the September 15,

1970 election campaign states: "AFGE Local 665 will remove 

their material posted on bulletin boards along with their 

identification." The Activity certified that all material 

posted by AFGE was removed, but the red tape was not removed 

as it served only the purpose of marking off a specific amount 

of space on each bulletin board. As set out in Report Number 20 

(copy attached), the Assistant Secretary will not undertake to 

police side agreements between the parties and the breach 

thereof, absent evidence that the conduct constituting such 

breach had an independent improper effect on the conduct of the 

election or the results of the election. It is found that 

the failure to remove the red tape from the bulletin boards 

did not have an independent improper effect on the conduct of 

the election or the results of the election, and accordingly, 

no merit is found to this objection.

Objection b

Objection b alleges that a steward of AFGE used the 

nursing assistant mail slots to notify personnel of an AFGE 

meeting to be held on September 21, 1970 which was a clear 

violation of the campaign agreement. The investigation revealed 

that the incident happened as alleged. AFGE acknowledged the 

incident, but said it occurred because of a communications 

breakdown. The local president of AFGE was admonished by the 

Activity about the incident, and in the interest of equity,

NFFE was advised it could use the same facilities to notify 

nursing assistants who were members of NFFE about an authorized 

meeting NFFE had scheduled for September 24, 1970. In view 

of the prompt action taken by the Activity to correct this 

situation, and as it is found this incident did not have an 

independent improper effect on the conduct of the election, 

it is concluded this objection is within the purview of Report 

No. 20, and the dismissal of Objection b by the Regional 

Administrator was warranted.

-5-

Objection c

Objection c alleges that the names of all new members 

of NFFE are made available to AFGE, and that the local president 

of AFGE threatened several new members of NFFE during duty hours, 

despite the fact NFFE has repeatedly asked the Activity to keep 

the names of new NFFE members confidential. The case file reveals 

that the Activity denies making the names of new members of NFFE 

available to AFGE, and that the local president of AFGE has denied 

making threats to NFFE members'. In its request for review NFFE 

alleges it has evidence to support this allegation, which if true, 

may present a relevant question of fact. As it is not clear from 

the case file that NFFE had an adequate opportunity during the 

investigation to present all of its evidence with respect to this 

objection, the instant case will be remanded to the Regional 

Administrator for the purposes of having further investigation 

conducted regarding the allegations raised in Objection c.

Objection d

Objection d alleges that the local vice president of 

AFGE circulated what he called a "poll" during duty hours, 

soliciting employees who were eligible to vote to sign their 

names if they were going to vote for AFGE. The investigation 

reveals that the Activity denied knowledge of this alleged poll, 

and that the named officer of AFGE denied the allegation.

Although this objection raises a question of fact, it is found 

it does not raise a material issue because under the circumstances 

alleged, a union agent’s interrogation of employees as to union 

affiliation and voting intentions does not constitute objectionable 

conduct that would affect the results of the election. Accordingly, the dismissal of Objection d by the Regional Administrator 

was justified.

As the undersigned has agreed with the findings of the 

Regional Administrator that Objections a(l), a(3), a(4), a(6) 

a(7), a(8), b and d have no merit; and that Objection c requires 

additional investigation; and that Objections a(2) and a(5) should 

be reconsidered, it is concluded that the case should be remanded 

to the Regional Administrator for the purposes set forth above, 

and for issuing a supplementary report of his findings.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

119
Mr. Karl M. Cloninger

President, Branoh 54S

National Association of n m

Letter Carriers *

3617 Daodrldge Circle

Matthews, Korth Orollaa 28105

R6: United States Post Office

Charlotte, Korth Carolina

Case No. 40-2398 (CA)

Dear Ur, Cloninger:

The undersigned has received your request for review

of the Beglonal Administrator's decision dismissing your

eomplaint brought against the above named Activity.

A review of the case reveals that the Beglonal

Administrator, In his decision March 26, 1971, served on all

parties on that date, advised you of your right, under Section

203.7(e) of the Regulations, to obtain a review of his action

by filing a request for review with the undersigned to be

received by me by the close of business April 8, 1971. Tour

request for review dated April 5, 1971, and Bailed April 7,

1971, was received am April 9, 1971, and therefore was untimely.

Accordingly, your request for review will not be

considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e oi-' t h i : A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON', D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ur. Daniel Loff 

Attorney

Slmandl, Leff, Itzlkman & Kraemer '^

20 Evergreen Place

East Orange, New Jersey 07018

Ro: U. S. Aray, Patterson 

Ansy Hospital 

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2030 E.O.

Dear Ur. Leff:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

the R0 petition filed in the above r.air.cd case by the Licensed 

Practical Nurses Association of New Jorsey.

I find that the Regional Administrator's action was 

warranted as the case record reveals that the potltion was 

not timely filed in accordance with Section 202.5(b) of the 

Regulations. I further find that the telegram of February 26, 

1971 which was received on Liarch 1, 1971 did not request 

an extension of time for the purpose of filing a petition.

Accordingly, your request that the dismissal of tho 

petition by the Regional Administrator be reversed is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

120
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

May 20, 1971

Mr. Robert M. Tobias 

Staff Counsel

National Association of Internal

Revenue Employees H O

Suite 1100

711-14th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: United States Treasury Department 

Internal Revenue Service 

Case Nos. 22-1916(CU)

22-1917(CU)

22-1918(CU)

Dear Mr. Tobias:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissals of 

the petitions in the above named cases and the supporting 

briefs filed by yourself and by counsel for the Activity.

The National Association of Internal Revenue Service 

Employees (NAIRE) filed three separate petitions for 

clarification into three virtually nation-wide units of 

numbers of existing units which fall into three separate 

categories as follows:

1. The petition in case number 22-1916 (CU) seeks 

clarification into one unit of fifty two existing units of 

nonprofessional and professional employees of District 

offices of the Activity who have previously, over a period 

of years, voted for NAIRE as their exclusive representative 

in each of the fifty one separate District offices and one 

partial District office. The approximate aggregate number 

of employees in the fifty two units deployed throughout the 

nation is 22,910.

2. The petition in case number 22-1917 (CU) seeks 

clarification into one unit of nine existing units of professional 

employees within the Activity, in nine District offices, who have 

previously, over a period of years, voted for NAIRE as their 

exclusive representative in each of the nine District offices.

-2-

The aggregate number of employees in this category is approximately 4,770.

3. The petition in case number 22-1918 (CU) seeks 

clarafication into one unit of eight existing units of nonprofessional and professional employees of Service Center 

offices of the Activity who have previously, over a period 

of years, voted for NAIRE as their exclusive representative 

in each of the eight Service Center offices. The aggregate 

number of employees in this category is approximately 12,953.

Giving due regard to your contention that I have the 

authority under Section 6.(1) of Executive Order 11491 to 

merge these various local facility units into three extensive 

nation-wide units (with minor exclusions of local units 

represented by other labor organizations) without elections 

by the device of the CU petition provided for in Sections 

202.1(c) and 202.2(c) of the Regulations, I find in agreement 

with the Regional Administrator that the CU petition is not 

the correct vehicle to use in these circumstances to achieve 

the results you desire. Rather, it appears that in the 

circumstances presented in the subject cases, a more appropriate 

means to achieve the result sought would be to file RO petitions 

which can then be considered on their merits.

Accordingly, your request for the reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petitions is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

May 20, 1971

Mr. Joseph J. Schmidtlein 

Secretary-Treasurer

Local 14, National Federation of y y

Federal Employees 

1145 Marshall Avenue 

St. Paul, Minnesota 55119

Re: Veterans Administration and 

VA Data Processing Center 

Fort Snelling, Minnesota 

Case No. 51-1517

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your 

objections to the runoff election held in the above named case 

on February 11, 1971.

. The first objection alleges that members of the American 

Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), wore campaign material 

such as campaign buttons and pocket protectors on the day of the 

runoff election. Your request for review states that this conduct 

violated the provisions of a preelection campaign agreement between 

the parties. The case file indicates that AFGE may have withdrawn 

from the alleged preelection, agreement before the election and the 

Regional Administrator so found in his decision of March 23, 1971 

dismissing the objections. However, regardless of what the fact 

may be in this regard, as set out in Report Number 20, (copy 

enclosed), I will not undertake to police such a side agreement, 

absent evidence that the conduct constituting such breach had an 

independent improper effect on the conduct of the election or 

the results of the election. It is found the wearing of this 

campaign material did not have an independent improper effect 

regarding the election, and therefore, the Regional Administrator 

was warranted in overruling this objection.

The second objection alleges that AFGE was granted the 

use of a training room by the Activity on February 8 and 9, 1971, 

to provide free sandwiches, cake and coffee; that this same room 

was used for the election on February 11; that AFGE encouraged 

employees in the hallways to partake of the free offering; and 

that the resultant noise and confusion interrupted the work

-2-

routine of employees who had to pass through the area. I agree 

with the Regional Administrator’s conclusion that the alleged 

conduct in the second objection does not warrant the setting 

aside of the runoff election.

Accordingly, your request that the runoff election be 

set aside is denied, and the Regional Administrator is hereby 

directed to have an appropriate certification of representative 

issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

122
O f f i c e o f t u b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

«w*,isn

Mr. Raymond J. Malloy 

Associate Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government r-jg

Employees 

400 Fir-st Street, N,. W.

•Washington, .D. C.. .20001

Re: Virgin Island District 

Bureau of Customs 

St. Croix, Virgin Islands 

Case No. 42-1497 (RO)

Dear Mr. Malloy:

The■undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review seeking reversal of Regional Adnunistrator's 

dismissal of your petition in the above named case.

Your request for review failed to show, good cause for 

extending the ten (10) day intervention period, set forth 

in Section 202.5 of the regulations.or to raise any 

material issue which would warrant reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's action.

Accordingly, your request is denied,

Sincereiy,

W. J.' Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

- May 27, 1971

Mr. Harvey P. Rubien 

President

National Federation of Federal 79

Employees, Local 68 

22 Werner Park 

Rochester, New York 14620

Re: Defense Contract Administration 

Services District 

Rochester, New York 

Case-No. 35-1321 E.O.__________

Dear Mr. Rubien:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of certain objections 

filed by the. National Federation of Government Employees, 

Local 68 to conduct affecting the results of the runoff 

election held among certain employees of the Defense Contract 

Administration Services, Rochester District, Rochester,

New York on October 16, 1970.

The grounds upon which your short telegraphic request 

for review are based are unclear. However, to the extent 

that your reasons for disagreeing with the action of the 

Regional Administrator can be understood from a reading of 

the telegram, they seem to be based upon contentions (1) that 

you did not have time to publish reply leaflets to literature 

issued by the rival labor organization, and (2) that the 

rival labor organization violated a side agreement between 

the participating labor organizations concerning pre-election 

campaign activities.

The claim that you did not have enough time to publish 

reply leaflets is raised for the first time in your request 

for review and is itself untimely. See my Report on Decision 

No. 22, a copy of which is attached for your information.

I have reviewed the campaign literature you characterize as 

inaccurate and agree with the Regional Administrator that 

it is typical campaign material which can be evaluated 

properly by the voter. Further, it is my position that no
-2-

party is entitled as a matter of right to the last word 

in an election campaign.

With respect to your contention that the rival labor 

organization violated a side agreement it is my position 

that where parties make side agreements intended to regulate 

pre-election conduct and activities, such side agreements 

will not be policed and pre-election conduct in violation 

of a side agreement will be taken into account only if it 

is shown to have had an independent adverse effect upon 

the election. A copy of my Report on Decision No. 20 on 

this point is attached for your information. In the subject 

case no such showing of independent adverse effect is made.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator’s Findings and Ruling on 

Objections is denied, and the Regional Administrator is 

directed hereby to have issued an appropriate certification 

of representative.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LA BOP.

.May 27, 1971

Mr. Gordon P. Ramsey

Attorney 80

Gadsby & Hannah 

75 Federal Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Re: Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 

Case No. 60-2101 (RO)

Dear Mr. Ramsey:

This refers to your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator’s determination in 

his Report and Findings on Objections dated March 25, 1971, 

that an election held on December 4, 1970 in the above named 

case should be set aside and that a rerun election should 

be held.

The parties were advised in the Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Objections, in part that,

"The request for review must be received by the Assistant 

Secretary of Labor in Washington, D. C. 20210, by close of 

business April 7, 1971." This instruction is in accord 

with Sections 202.20(f) and 202.6(d) of the Regulations.

Your request for review was not received timely 

and accordingly, will not be considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

124
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y / 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O'-

IIIW» W'

Mr. Manuel Donabedlan 

Executive Director 

National Association of Government 

Employees 

1341 G Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 2000S

Re: General Services Administration 

Philadelphia, Pa,

Case No. 20-2246_____ _

Dear Ur. Donabedlan:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

the petition filed by Local R3-71, National Association 

of Government Employees, based on his determination that 

the showing of interest was inadequate.

The Regulations make no provision for a. review of a 

Regional Administrator's determination of the adequacy of 

showing of interest.

Accordingly, your request that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the petition be reversed is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

May 27, 1971

Mr. Neal H. Fine

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 82

Employees (AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: Department of the Navy r 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 

Case No. 31-^3278 E.O.

Dear Mr. Fine:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the petition 

filed by Local 2887, American Federation of Government Employees 

AFL-CIO, (AFGE) for exclusive recognition of certain employees 

employed by the above named Activity.

The unit claimed to be appropriate is described as 

all ungraded IV A Formen, General Foremen I, Associate Supervisory Inspectors, and Supervisory Inspectors, excluding all 

ratings and titles not so described. The Regional Administrator 

determined the unit not appropriate and dismissed the petition.

The request for review contends that (1) the Regional 

Administrator's decision is based on job descriptions furnished 

by the Activity rather than on an independent investigation as 

required by the Regulations, and (2) that the employees sought 

to be represented perform supervisory duties only to the extent 

of making decisions of a routine or clerical nature. The only 

supporting evidence upon which the request for review is based 

consists of a sworn affidavit by the President, Local 2887, a 

Foreman, in which he states he is without authority to make 

final decisions beyond that of routine or clerical nature 

involving supervisory responsibilities described in Section 2(c) 

of Executive Order 11491. Apart from the self-serving nature 

of the statement of the President of Local 2887 who also signed
-2-

the petition, I find significant the last sentence of his 

statement which reads as follows:

"The above statements regarding my duties are 

to the best of my knowledge applicable to a 

preponderance of the other members of this 

proposed unit." (Emphasis supplied)

This statement I regard as an admission that there are members 

of the claimed unit who have disqualifying supervisory authority.

No evidence was tendered by Petitioner which would 

tend to prove that all four categories of employees sought 

were eligible to be included in an appropriate unit and did 

not fall within the definition of supervisor as set out in 

Section 2(c) of the Executive Order. On the other hand the 

investigation of the Area Administrator and copious documentary 

evidence supplied by the Activity, demonstrate that the categories 

General Forman I and Supervisory Inspectors are clearly 

supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Order and 

strongly suggest that the other two categories sought are also 

supervisory in more than a minimal sense.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of the petition is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S p c r e t a r y f ’ . :

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 £ Y;JJ ■

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. William F. Carr 

Chief Counsel

National Association of CovcrnrAant q o

Employees 

235 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston. Massachusetts 02127

Re: Naval Underwater Weapons Resear 

and Engineering Station 

Case No. -31-4388 E.O.

Dear Mr. Carr:

The undersigned has carefully considered your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition 

in the above named case.

Local Rl-134, National Association of Government Employees 

(NAGE) on February 22, 1971, filed a petition with the Boston 

Area Office seeking exclusive recognition of employees 

covered by an existing collective bargaining agreement between 

the Activity and the International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO), which would terminate on 

Tuesday, April 20, 1971. The Regional Administrator determined that- the -last day for timely filing of the' petition 

was February 19, 1971, and dismissed the petition.

The request for review agrees that April 20, 1971, is 

the terminal date of the agreement, however, it contends 

that the terminal date, the end of the contract period, 

is included in determining the sixtieth (60th) day prior 

to the termination of the agreement.. Based on that formula 

NAGE determined the sixtieth (60.th) day. to be Saturday, 

February 20, 1971, and therefore its petition filed oo 

Monday, February 22, 1971, was timely.

Saction 202v3(c) of the regulations prescribes in part 

that when there is a signed agreement covering a claimed 

unit, a petition for exclusive recognition will not be 

considered timely unless it is filed.not more than ninety 

(90) days nor less, than sixty (60) days prior to the terminal

126
-2-

datc ox the agreement. The designated period of time here 

concerned with is not the period, covered by the agreement, 

but rather the ninety'(90) through sixty (60) day period 

prior to the terminal date of the agreement within which 

a petition for representation may be filed, and the terminal 

d;ite of the agreement is not to be included in determining 

the sixtieth (60th) day prior to that event.

It is, therefore, my conclusion that the sixtieth (60th) 

and last day on which a petition could be timely filed was 

February ,19., 1971.

•Accordingly, your request seeking..reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal-of the petition is 

denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABORJune 4, 1971

Hr. Raymond P. Blanchard 

Attorney

Law Offices of Flynn, Powell &

McGuirk

Folson Salter Bldg. - 95 Court Street 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801

Re: Air National Guard

Concord, New Hampshire 

Case No. 31-3398 E.O.

Dear Mr. Blanchard:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the complaint filed in the above named case.

The case file reveals that no charge was filed with 

the Activity prior to the filing of the complaint as is 

required by Section 203.2 of the Regulations. Hy policy 

with respect to compliance with the requirements of this 

section is set out in Report No. 16 (copy enclosed).

Accordingly, your request that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the complaint be reversed is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

127
U .S . D E P A R T M E N T O F LA BOR

O P flC E O F T H E A SSIST A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Robert Thomas Carty 

609 No. 43rd Street 

Belleville, Illinois <

Re: United States Air Force 

Headquarters, Military 

Airlift Command 

Scott Air Force Base, 

Illinois 62225 

Case No. 50-4432 (CA)

Dear.Mr. Carty:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator*is 

dismissal of your complaint in the above named case.

The complaint filed March 26, 1970 alleges violations 

of- Section 19(a) (1) and (4) of Executive Order 11491.

After investigation, the Regional Administrator dismissed 

the complaint on March 18, 1971 on the ground that no charge 

had been filed with the Activity as required by Section

203.2 of the Regulations. From a review of the facts 

disclosed by the case files it is found that no charge 

was filed with the Activity prior to March 26, 1970.

Accordingly, your request seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint is 

denied.

Sincerely,

m

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR -

JUN 7 1971

Mr. Daniel J. Kearney 

National Vice President

American Federation of Government Employees,

AFL-CIO o p

First District Headquarters 

912 Gallivan Boulevard, Suite 2 

Dorchester, Massachusetts 02124

Res Defense Supply Agency 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Case No. 31-4300 E.O.

Dear Mr. Kearney:

On April 14, 1971, you filed with me, on behalf of 

Local 1906, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 

a request for review of the determination of the Beglonal 

Administrator of the New York Region overruling a challenge 

to the validity of the showing of interest of the Petitioner 

in the above named case.

The determination of the Regional Administrator was issued 

on January 7, 1971, and reaffirmed by him on January 20, 1971 

after your National Representative had requested a reconsideration of the determination. In his determination the 

Regional Administrator found that NAGE had made an adequate 

showing of interest to sustain the petition and directed the 

Area Administrator to process the petition.

Your request for review concludes with a demand that "a 

certification of the signatures which were submitted by NAGE 

in Case No. 31-4300 E.O. be made in order to determine 

whether or not NAGE Is a valid petitioner in this case.” You 

refer to Report No. 21, but contend that in the circumstances 

in this case that report does not apply.

It is found that Report No. 21 does apply to the present 

case. The Regulations do not provide for a review by the 

Assistant Secretary of a determination by a Regional
- 2-

Admlnistrator dismissing a challenge to the validity of a 

showing of interest. 

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's Determination of Showing 

of Interest is denied* 

Sincerely,

W. J, Usery, Jr# 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

June 8, 1971

Emily A. Whittemore, President

Local 1764, American Federation of 87

Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

1252 Travis Boulevard 

Fairfield, California 94533

* Re: Travis Air Force Base 

Travis Air Force Base,

California 

Case No. 70-1836

Dear Mrs. Whittemore:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review of theRegional Administrator’s dismissal of the objection filed by Local 1764, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) to conduct affecting 

the results of the runoff election held on March 23, 1971, among certain employees employed at the above named activity.

The conduct alleged to be objectionable was the distribution by the Activity of one hundred thirty (130) page voting lists to observers representing AFGE and Local R12-75, National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), 

at a conference preceding the runoff election. AFGE contended this gave the 

observers information as to whom to contact prior to the election.

The evidence reveals that the voting lists referred to contained names 

identical to those on the voting lists distributed to observers attending the 

pre-election conference prior to the original election, and that they were identical to those on the alphabetical lists furnished to both AFGE and NAGE 

by the Activity several weeks before the original election. These were utilized by both labor organizations in extensive electioneering campaigns prior 

to both elections. The voting lists differed in format only, i.e. the eligible employees were listed numerically by social security number rather than 

alphabetically.

The Regional Administrator examined the evidence submitted by the parties 

and determined that the objection is without merit. I agree with his conclusion.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of the objection is denied and the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate certification of representative issued.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e A s s is t a n t Se c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 8, 1971

Mr. P. Harris 

President

Mailhandlers1 Local 75

Mailhandlers* Division of the Laborers*

International Union of North America Q Q

(AFL-CIO)

3764 Rockport Place, S. W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30331

Re: United States Post Office 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Case No. 40-2384 CA)

Dear Mr. Harris:

The undersigned has received your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint in the above named 

case.

The Regional' Administrator, in his letter of March 23, 1971, 

advised you of your right, under Section 203.7(c) of the Regulations, to 

obtain a review of his action by filing a request for review with the 

undersigned to be received by me by the close of business April 3, 1971.

It was later determined that service on you of that letter was not accomplished until after a request for review could be timely filed. Accordingly, 

the Regional Administrator, by letter dated April 19, 1971, extended the 

filing period until the close of business May 3, 1971, and receipt of this 

extension of time was acknowledged by you on April 20, 1971.

Your request for review dated May 2, 1971, was mailed at Atlanta, 

Georgia postmarked May 3, 1971, the date it was required to be received 

in ray office. It was received in my office at a later date.

Accordingly, your request for review will not be considered.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

June 8, 1971

Mr. Irving I. Geller 

Director

Legal & Employee Relations 89

National Federation .of Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of the Army 

Picatinny Arsenal 

Dover, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-1954 E.0.

Dear Mr. Geller:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the above named case.

The complaint filed by National Federation of Government Employees 

(NFFE), alleges that Respondent violated Sections 19(a) (1) and (3) of 

the Executive Order essentially by:

(1) Harassing a NFFE Local 1437 Vice President in his employee 

representational efforts for the past ten months.

(2) Issuing a reprimand against an NFFE Local 1437 Treasurer, 

because of his union activities.

(3) Permitting AFGE to have on display, a copy of their newspaper 

in news stands, in areas of the Activity for which they do not have exclusive recognition.

With respect to (1), the investigation revealed that the first part 

of the complained of interference occurred in March 1970, more than six 

months prior to the filing of a charge on December 3, 1970 against the 

Agency and would be untimely under Section 203.2 of the Regulations. Concerning those acts which could have occurred within the six month period, 

the investigation disclosed that although initially told by a supervisor 

in July 1970, that he could not represent an employee because of exclusive 

AFGE representation, your Local Vice-President's complaint to the Personnel 

Chief led to a reversal of this decision.

With respect to (2), the Regional Administrator's finding was not 

questioned by you in your request for review.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e A s sis t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

130
With respect to (3), the investigation showed NFFE has been afforded an equal opportunity to distribute literature. The investigation did 

not reveal that NFFE was ever denied newspaper display opportunities which 

have been afforded AFGE.

Accordingly, your request for the reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 18, 1971

Mr. Stanford C. Madden

Attorney nr*

6225 Brookside Boulevard,

Room 215 

Kansas City, Missouri 64113

Re: Region 17, NLRB 

Case No. 60-1943

Dear Mr. Madden:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint filed by 

William M. Guerin in the above case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1),

(2), and (4) of the Executive Order together with all supporting evidence.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I am of the opinion 

that the evidence fails to establish that the Agency's refusal to promote 

William M. Guerin to Grade GS-13 was based upon unlawful considerations. 

Accordingly, and absent any other probative evidence of violation, your 

request for reversal of the Regional Administrator's dimissal of the 

complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. , 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

131
O f p jc e o p t u b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mrs. Sarah B. Buettner

President, Local Union 803

National Federation of Federal Employees

P. 0. Box 3947

Texarkana, Texas 75501

Re: Red River Army Depot 

Texarkana, Texas 

Case No. 63-2572 (CO)

Dear Mrs. Buettner:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator*s 

dismissal of your complaint in the above named case.

The case file indicates that the complaint dismissed in 

the above named case by the Regional Administrator on March 11,

1971, was in fact, not intended to be a complaint as contemplated by Part 203 of the Regulations, but rather was Intended 

to be a challenge to the validity of showing of interest filed 

by Local Union No. R14-52, National Association of Government 

Employees (NAGE) in Case No. 63-2534 (RO). According to your 

letter dated March 4, 1971, addressed to the Dallas,Texas,

Area Administrator, which was attached to your request for review, 

complaint form LMSA 62 was used to challenge the validity of 

showing of interest of NAGE, based on information received by 

you from the Area Office.

V

Notwithstanding the Incorrect form used, your challenge 

was fully considered and dismissed on the merits by the Regional 

Administrator in his Dismissal of Challenges to Showing of 

Interest dated April 23, 1971, of which I take administrative 

notice. I have previously ruled that a Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of a challenge to the validity of showing of interest 

will not be reviewed by the Assistant Secretary because the 

Regulations make ho provision for such procedure. Enclosed for 

your information is a copy of Report No. 21 which relates to 

this point.

Accordlngly, your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's action Is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

-2 -

132
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 7, 1971

Mr. Joseph E. Welchel, Jr. ^

2911 Mosby Street 

Alexandria, Virginia 22305

Re: Joseph E. Welchel, Jr. Complainant 

Washington Printing Pressmen’s 

Union No. 1, IPPA, Respondent 

Case No. 22-2333

Dear Mr. Welchel:

This is in reply to your request for review of the decision of the Regional 

Administrator in Philadelphia dismissing your complaint in the above-named 

case.

I have reviewed all the pertinent information and have concluded that the 

complaint should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, since 

Local 1 is subject to Executive Order 11491. I have accordingly directed 

the Regional Administrator to consider the complaint in accordance with 

existing procedures.

Sincerely, yours,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTM ENT O F LABOR

Orrtc* o r t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON

Mr. Nathan T. Wolkomir 

President

National Federation of Federal q o

Employees ^

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Amarillo, Texas 

Case Ho. 63-2176

Dear Ur. Wolkomir:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of-all 

objections filed by the National Federation of Federal Emplbyees, 

Local 1138 (NFFE) to conduet -of 'the election or conduct affecting 

the results of the election held among certain employees of the 

Activity on September 30, 1970.-

Objection a

Objection a contains eight allegations which the NFFE 

claims show that the Activity was biased and prejudiced in favor 

of the Intervenor, the American Federation of Government Employees 

(AFGB).

Objection a(l) alleges that although NFFE filed a RO 

petition the first week of July 1970, AFGE continued to rotain 

all the privileges of an exclusive representative, and that Nl'FE 

was denied these privileges for most of the time during the"open 

season." The investigation reveals that AFGE had an exclusive 

agreement with the Activity that began on July 8, 1966, and.was 

due to expire on October 2, 1970. As a result of this agreement 

AFGE was furnished office space; allowed to use bulletin boards; 

and was furnished space for-neetlngs. The evidence discloses 

that an election cajnpaign agreement was signed by both unions on 

September IS, 1970, and amended on September 25, 1970, which 

provided equal opportunity for election campaigning to both 

unions. No evidence was submitted that shows AFGE received preferential treatment from the Activity that affeoted the results 

of the election due to its status as the exclusive representative 

of the employees in the -unit, and no objectionable conduct is 

found In regard, to this allegation.

133
- 2 -

Objection a(2) alleges that on September 11, 1970, 

a newsletter was circulated to non-duty employees by NFFE, and 

that subsequently the local president of NFFE was directed by 

letter "to cease and desist from distributing NFFE local 1138 

.material on ..VA property.'-- The investigation reveals that on 

September 10, 1$70, employees of the Activity who were members 

of NFFE, placed newsletters in mail slots in a ward of tho hospital. 

These newsletters were removed by management. NFFE protested 

this action by letter dated September 10, 1970. On September 11,

1970, the Personnel Officer of the Activity answered In writing 

the NFFE letter of September 10, 1970. This Activity letter 

contained the "cease and desist" language referred to in this 

objection, and will be considered in Objection a(5) where this 

letter 1b the subject of an objections

The circulation of a newsletter to employees on 

September 11, 1970, by employees of the Activity who^ere members 

of NFFE is the basis for this objection. The case file reveals 

that local officers of NFFE were observed distributing NFFE' 

newsletters on Activity premises on September 11, 1970. They 

were orally notified by the Personnel Officer that such distribution was improper and would not be-permitted on hospital premises 

unless authorized by a campaign agreement.

A prohibition on 'employee electioneering on activity 

premises until an election agreement wa9 established was ruled 

on by the undersigned in Charleston Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 1.

The Charleston decision was issued on November 3, 1970, and the 

Report Findings on Objections by the Regional.Administrator 

in this case was Issued on December 23, 1970. As the Regional 

Administrator's Report does not indicate that the Charleston 

decision was considered in making his determination regarding 

this objection, I shall romand tho case to him for his consideration 

as to what effect, if any, the Charleston decision would have on 

the conduct alleged in this objection.

Objection a(3) alleges the Petitioner was denied a 

meeting place on September 10, 1970, while at the same time AFGE 

had an office space with no restrictions on meetings. Tho investigation discloses that AFGE had been authorized business office 

space early in 1970, but this space was revoked on September 3 0,

1970, due to the fact that the Activity could not provide comparable space to NFFB as requested. The Aotlvlty noted In a letter 

dated September 24, 1970, to NFFE that the two meetings held by 

AFGE since NFFE had filed its petition, and which NFFE had protested, were regular monthly business meetings of AFGE. It is 

noted in the oleotlon campaign- agreement. dated .Soptember 15, 1970, 

that both unions were authorized to have one meeting and to use 

the same conference room on Activity property prior to the 

election. No objectionable conduct 1b found in regard to this 

allegation.

Objection a(4) allegos NFFE was not provided access 

to..all employees as Indicated in Exhibit No* 3. Exhibit- I»o, 3 

is a letter "To Whom Concerned” signed by a national representative of NFFE. Tho representative states he saw employees 

leaving work -by an exit not covered as a distribution point 

for distributing elootiou onmpaign. litera/tiire; The parties 

signed tho: priginal election campaign agreement on September IS,

1970, which provided that election campaign literaturo could 

be distributed on Soptember 24, 25, 28, and 29, 1970 at. --twoIdentified locations.. After a cpmnlaint c,bout the ngroewent 

from NFFE, it was amended on Sefttojnber 2l>, 1970, adding two 

more places for campaign material distribution on Septoinbor 28, 

29, 1970. As both of these election campaign agreements wero 

signed, by tho presidents of both local unions, and as both 

unions were afforded equal rights, no merit is found to tho 

allegation.

Objection a(5) alleges that management failod. to 

initiate adverse notion hgalnst the person or persons- who 

removed NFFE's .news letter from mail slots as indicated In 

Exhibit No. 4, and that-tho. local piresident of NFFE received 

unjust criticism as indicated by Exhibit No. 1.

The case file shows-that Exhibit No. 1 is, the Activity 

letter referred to in Objection a.(2i).« In part, tills letter 

states, "You are harowltU directed to coase and desist from 

distributing.NFFE Local H-38 'material on VA property." Thin 

same letter made it clear that NFFE was to stop campaigning 

only until election campaign arrangements wore agreed to by 

all parties at a meeting..which had already been scheduled 

within three days of the date of the letter.

It is noted that this letter contains a broad 

prohibition on tho distribution of NFFE material on Activity 

premises, even though tho ban was to be effectivo only for a 

short period of time. As. a rosult, I conclude that tills 

conduot should bo considered in. light of tho Charleston, 

deoision, for a determination as to what offeet, if any, that 

deoision may have on tho conduct alleged in this objection.

Objection a(G) allegos that prior to a NFFE lottor 

to the Activity dated September 21, 1970, NFFli woo forccd to 

process -payroll deductions for new NFFE members by nmil in 

conflict with tho Federal Porsonnol Manual. Tho Activity 

categorically denied this allocation, but in any event, no 

rolationship is found botween the mothod of procesHinr payroll deductions for '.Union members and tho conduot of tho 

election. Xhereforo, no improper conduct.affecting tho 

results of tho election is found in regard to. this allegation.

- 3 -

134
Objection a(7) alleges that since NFFE filed its 

petition, now employees have reported to NFFE that tho 

Personnel Division has been biased in favor of AFGE as tho 

employees' representative. The case record roveals that 

the conduct relied upon in support of this objection Was 

required to.be -done by the. contract in effeot between tho 

Activity and.AFGE,’ and it is further found that there was 

no objectionable conduct in regard to this objection t.hat 

affected the results of the election.

Objection aC8)'' aliogo3'',l<hat. despite uosurnnco from 

the Activity at tho time of the election campaign agreement 

that all markings for AFGE on department bulletin boards would 

be removed, the rod tapo which had become a recognized portion 

of AFGE markings was not removed. The investigation reveals 

that the last sentence under.paragraph 1 of tho September 15,

1970 election campaign states: "AFGE Looal 665 will remove 

their material posted on bulletin boards along with their 

identification." .The Activity certified that all. material 

posted by AFGE was removed, but the. rod tape was not removed 

as it served only tho purpose-of marking off a specific amount 

of space on each bulletin bo^rd. As sot out in Report Number 20 

(copy attached),, tho Assistant Secretary will not undertake tp 

police side agreements between the. parties and tho br9nch 

thoreof,- absent evidence that the conduct constituting ouch 

breach had an independentvimproper offoci on tho conduct of the 

.eleotion or the results of ‘the election. It is found thnt 

the failure to remove the red tape from tho bulletin boards 

did not have an independent improper effect on tho conduct of 

the eleotion or tho results of the election, and accordingly, 

no merit is found to this objection.

Objection b

Objection b alleges that a steward of AFGE used the 

nursing assistant mail slot3 to notify personnel of an AFGE 

meeting to bo hold on September 21, 1970 which was a cle.ir 

violation of the campaign agreement. Tho investigation rav*:;0tMt 

that the incident happened as alleged. AFGE acknowledged the 

incident, but said it occurred because of a communications 

breakdown. ‘Tho local president of AFGE was admonished by tho 

Activity about the incident, and in tho interest of equity,

NFFE was advised it could use tho same facilities to notify 

nursing assistants who were members of NFFE about an oul.norv. 

meeting NFFE had scheduled for Septcmbor 24, 1970. In view 

of the prompt action takon by tho Activity to coi'roct thi.rt 

situation, and as it is found this incident did not hnvo r.n 

independent improper effect on the conduot of tho election, 

it la concluded this objection is within the purviow of Report 

No, SO, and the dismissal of Objection b b y,the Regional 

Administrator was warranted.

- 5 -

Objection c

Objection c alleges that the names of all new members 

of NFFE are made available to AFCE, and that trie local president 

of AFGE threatened several new members of NFFE during duty hours 

despite the fact NFFE has repeatedly asked the Activity to keep 

the names of new NFFE members confidential. The case file reveals 

that the Activity denies making the names of new members of NFFE 

available to AFGE, and that the local president of AFGE has denied 

making threats to NFFE members. In its xeqjies.t for review NFFE 

alleges it has evidence to support! this allegation, which if true, 

nay present a relevant question of fact. As it is not clear from 

the case file that NFFE had an adequate opportunity during tlio 

investigation to present all of its evidence with respect to this 

objection, the instant case will be remanded to the Regional 

Administrator for the purposes of having further investigation 

conducted.regarding the allegations raised in Objection c.

Objection d

Objection d alleges that the local vice president of 

AFGE circulated what he called a "poll” during duty hours, 

soliciting employees who were eligible to vote to sign their 

flames if they were going to vote for- AFGE. The investigation 

reveals that tho Activity denied knowledge of this alleged poll, 

and that the named officer 6f AFGE denied tho allegation.

Although this objection raises a question of fact, it is found 

it does not raise a material issue because under the circumstances 

alleged, a union agent's interrogation of employees as to union 

affiliation and voting intentions does not constitute objectionable 

conduct that would affect the results of tho election. Accordingly, the dismissal of Objection d by the Regional Administrator 

was Justified.

As the undersigned has agreed with the findings of the 

Regional Administrator that Objections a(l), a(3), a(4), a(G), 

a(7), a(8), b and d have no merit; and that Objection c requires 

additional investigation; and that Objections a(2) and a(0) should 

be reconsidered, it is concluded that the case should be remanded 

to the Regional Administrator for the purposes set forth above, 

and for Issuing a supplementary report of his findings.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr, E. Quinones

Director Q d

ITPGE, National Maritime Union 

606 Caile Monserrate, Pda 15%

Santurce, Puerto Rico 0090S

Re: Department of the Navy 

U.S. Naval Station 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

Case Nos. 37-776 & 37-7S0

Dear Mr, Quinones:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of all 

objections filed by National Maritime Union of America 

AFL-CIO, (NMU) to the conduct of an election held among 

certain employees of the Activity on October 28, 1970*

Based upon a full review of your objections to the election 

in the subject case and the evidence supplied in support 

thereof, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the objections was warranted.

Your first ground for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator referred to but not discussed in your request 

for review was that your request to intervene submitted 

on June 22, 1970 was held for 30 days before the Area 

Administrator advised you that an amendment was required, 

which delay improperly gave Local 2614, American Federation 

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), additional time 

to campaign, must be rejected. The thrust of your objection 

appears to concern the 30 days between the time of NMU's 

request to intervene on June 22nd and the letter from the 

Area Administrator on July 22nd advising that all parties 

could now proceed to discuss the possibility of a consent 

agreement. Considering the facts thst an intervenor does 

not normally amend its petition, the problem of definition 

of the appropriate unit as well as the wide disparity 

in Che number of employees alleged to be in the unit in

-2-

AFGE's and NMU's petitions, which presumably was supposed 

to be identical and given the' posting requirement, the 

30 days consumed does not appear to be an excessive 

expenditure of time.

Your second ground for reversal which was discussed 

in your request for review basically reiterates what was 

stated in the objection with respect to the alleged slow 

processing of NMU's request to intervene by the Area 

Administrator, resulting in a 5 month delay from the 

filing of the petition to the election. Additionally, 

the complaint is that "AFGE's brazen refusal to refuse 

to consider an election date at the meeting of August 

20, 1970 was grounds for an immediate dismissal of their 

petition", since by so doing it flouted Labor Department 

procedure, gained additional campaigning time, and should 

not have been on the bal..ot at all. I find that no undue 

delay was caused'by the nrea Administrator in this matter. 

Further, regardless of these alleged facts, the parties 

did meet and execute a consent election agreement and 

NMU participated in the election.

Your third ground for reversal, referred to but not 

discussed in your request for review, alleged that "AFGE 

representatives including Mr. Benjamin, visited the Base 

during times labor organization representatives were not 

permitted to go on the Base", thus allowing AFGE to make 

employee contact "during unauthorized periods" despite 

NMU protests to the Agency. I find no merit in this 

objection, since at least two of the four incidents 

which investigation revealed formed the basis for this 

objection (unauthorized electioneering), took place 

among employees not in the voting unit. With respect 

to the two other alleged incidents, investigation disclosed 

that one concerned several minutes of additional campaining 

by AFGE, because of poor synchronization of watches, and 

the second which occurred nearly two months prior to the 

election, concerned granting permission to AFGE to campaign 

on the Base while NMU was so engaged, despite an earlier 

Activity refusal to NMU to campaign while AFGE was so 

engaged* All of the incidents appear to be isolated in 

nature, and insignificant in view of the wide-spread 

electioneering by NMU, which did take place and the lack 

of any evidence to indicate any intentional discriminatory 

treatment of NMU by the Activity.

136
-3-

In these circumstances your request for reversal of 

Che Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections 

to the election is denied.

Sincerely,

W, J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

June 23, 1971

Mr. Raymond J. Malloy 

Associate Staff Counsel 

American Federation of Government 

Employees (AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Miami, Florida 

Case No. 42-1451

Dear Mr. Malloy:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed by American Federation of Government Employees, (AFL-CIO), Local 1283 (AFGE).

The request for review lists six reasons for reversal of the Regional Administrator's action which break down to two general alternative positions, first, that by a correct application of the Regulations 

the petition was filed timely, and second, that if the conclusion is that 

the petition was filed untimely by one day it should be accepted as timely 

under the facts and circumstances presented.

Your first point is that the calculation of the open period of the 

agreement found to be a bar to your petition should be made by taking 

March 29, 1971 as the terminal date of the agreement. You state that such 

a date would result in January 28 being the last timely date for filing the 

petition. Taking Section 205.1 of the Regulations as authority for the correctness of this calculation you state:

"In calculating the period of time for all legal purposes, e.g., 

time to respond to service of complaints and charges, and all 

periods of time set forth in the Rules and Regulations, the day 

of service or the first effective day is never counted in determining the number of days in which response or action is required.

The Assistant Secretary can take judicial notice that this is the 

manner in which his own Rules and Regulations are applied and is 

^ the traditional manner of computing time."

I disagree with this analysis and point out to you that Section 

202.3(c) is the controlling section for the determination of the time 

boundaries of the open period and not Section 205.1 which has only prosU.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e A ssist a n t Se c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

95
- 2-

pective application. Applying Section 202.3(c), I find that January 27, 

1971 was the last day for the filing of a timely petition.

The additional five points made in the request for review are 

intended to support the position that, conceding for the purpose of 

argument that the filing was late, the petition should be accepted as 

timely in view of alleged facts and circumstances. I have considered 

these points and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the petition is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Mr. Louis J, Tulino

National Field Director 96

National Association of Letter Carriers 

P. 0. Box 159 

Ashtabula, Ohio 44004

Re: U. S. Post Office 

Hammond, Indiana 

Case No. S3-3387

Dear Ur. Tulino:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your complaint in the above named case alleging violation 

of Section 19 (a) (1) and (6) of the Executive Order.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find 

that the evidence fails to establish that the Agency's 

action implementing a change in the workweek schedule of 

letter carriers at the Hammond, Indiana postal facility 

violated the Executive Order. The evidence does establish 

that the Agency consulted with you on several occasions 

and offered to reinstate half of the Monday to Friday 

schedules it first announced would be changed, as a compromise adjustment of your grievance. Further, it appears 

that the action taken by the Agency was necessary to 

enable it to carry out its mission properly.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint 

is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h b A ssist a n t Se c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

138
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Victor .Rosario 

President'

American Federation of Government 97

Employeies, Local 2614 

601 De Diego Avenue 

Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico 00920

‘Re: U.S. Naval Exchan;;:: 

U.S..Naval StationSan Juai>, .Puerto Rico 

Case No.- 37-791 E.O.

Dear Mr. Rosario:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

decision dismissing your objections to conduct affecting 

the results of the election held on February 25, 1971 in the 

above named case.

The Regional Administrator, in his May 19,,1971 decision^ 

served on all parties on that date, advised that any party 

aggrieved by his findings could obtain review of his decision 

by filing a request for review with the undersigned to be 

received by the close of business June 1, 1971, and directed 

the parties' attention to Section 202.20(f) of the Regulations. 

Your request for review, dated May 28, 1971 but not postmarked until June 1, 1971, was received after that date and, 

therefore, was untimely.

In view of the foregoing, your request for review will 

not be considered on its merits, and is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 25, 1971

Mr. John E. Doss, Jr.

President

Federal Employees Council No. 270 

P. 0. Box 270

Hackettstown, New Jersey 07840

Re: Picatinny Arsenal

Department of the Army 

Dover, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-1818 E. 0.

Dear Mr. Doss:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator’s 

dismissal of your complaint in the above named case.

The complaint filed by Federal Employees Council No. 270 

(FEC) alleges that Respondent violated Section 19(a)(6) of 

.Executive Order 11491 for the reason that it refused to consult, 

confer or negotiate concerning a jurisdictional question 

arising as a result of Respondent’s assigning work of Wage 

Board employees, represented exclusively by another labor 

.organization, to be performed by uniformed guards, Classification Act employees, represented exclusively by FEC. The 

assigned work is that of changing tires and putting chains 

on tires on police vehicles when necessary during the midnight 

shift, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays when garage (Wage Board) 

employees are off duty.

Initially, FEC invoked established grievances procedures 

to resolve the issue, and those procedures were followed 

through a hearing before a Grievance Examiner. The Examiner 

found that the circumstances under which the work is to be 

performed are those of emergency under which the Civil Service 

Commission permits assignment of incidental duties inappropriate 

to an employee’s position. Subsequent to the Examiner’s 

finding FEC withdrew from the grievance procedure and submitted 

the issue directly to Respondent for discussion as a question 

concerning work jurisdiction. Respondent’s decision was that

98

139
-2-

the assignment was within its authority under Section 12 

of the Executive Order and that a jurisdictional question 

was not involved. FEC then filed a complaint under 

Executive Order 11491. The Regional Administrator subsequently 

dismissed FEC's complaint based on his finding that no reasonable basis for the complaint had been established.

For the past seven years or more the fact is that the 

changing of tires and the putting on of tire chains by uniformed guards during the midnight shifts on Saturdays,

Sundays and holidays have been an established terra and 

condition of employment of the uniformed guards working 

these shifts. This being the case the Activity was under 

no obligation to bargain during the term of the agreement 

about the continuance of this established practice.

In view of the above disposition of the case by the 

Regional Administrator I find it unnecessary to decide 

whether, as found by the Regional Administrator, the election 

of the grievance procedures by FEC before the filing of the 

unfair labor practice charge had the effect of removing my 

jurisdiction to review the dismissal of the complaint.

Accordingly, your request seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery,-Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 25, 1971

William B. Peer, Esq.

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen q q

and Peer 

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Federal Aviation Administration

New York Air Route Traffic Control 

Center 

Case No. 30-3213 E.O.

Dear Mr. Peer:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

Motion for Stay of Election and Request for Review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal on June 15, 1971 of 

your Motion to Intervene, Motion to Consolidate and Motion 

to Dismiss the Petition in the above named case.

The Regional Administrator relying on Section 

202.5(c) of the Regulations denied your Motion to Intervene 

on the basis that since Professional Air Traffic Controllers 

Organization, New York Air Route Traffic Control Center 

Chapter was not eligible to intervene during the ten day 

posting period starting March 11, 1971 it did not achieve 

status as a party to this proceeding. I agree with his 

ruling on the Motion to Intervene for the same reason.

Accordingly, your Motion for Stay of Election and 

your request for reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

denial of your motion to intervene are denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

140
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 28, 1971

Mr. Gordon P. Ramsey 1 0 0

Gadsby & Hannah

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Case No. 22-2551 (CA)

Dear Mr. Ramsey:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for review seeking to reverse the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint brought against the 

above named Activity on May 14, 1971, by the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) which also requested the 

stay of the election scheduled at that Activity for May 24,

1971, pending resolution of the request for review.

Under date of May 20, 1971, the parties were advised of my action directing the Regional Administrator to 

proceed to supervise the election on May 24, 1971, and to 

impound the ballots upon conclusion of the election.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I 

find that the complaints of May 5 and 10, 1971 were untimely'., 

filed.

With respect to the complaint of May 14, 1971, it 

is my conclusion that the allegation that Mr. Al Washington 

and Mr. T. J. Smith, International Representatives of the 

Metal Trades Council were electioneering and campaigning and 

soliciting employees in the shipyard was timely filed, based 

on the April 13, 1971 charge letter to the Activity.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Regional 

Administrator with the direction to reinstate the complaint 

solely for the purpose of considering the evidence submitted 

by the parties in respect to this allegation.

During the pendency of the complaint proceeding 

the ballots shall continue to be impounded.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o p t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 ®

»O - o ' ‘

William B. Peer, Esquire

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen & Peer X “ 1

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Case Nos. 22-1990, 1991, 1993 

1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999 

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008 

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 

2016, 2017__________________ '

Dear Mr. Peer:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissals of 

the complaints filed in the referenced cases alleging 

violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the Executive 

Order.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I am 

of the opinion that my Report No. 25 dated March 1, 1971, 

is applicable to the circumstances of these cases. The 

evidence shows that the complaints herein are subject 

to an established grievance and appeals procedure.

Accordingly, your request for the reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaints is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 2, 1971

102 Mr. Anthony Cafaro

600 - 61st Avenue

St. Petersburg, Florida 33705

Re: 81st Army Command 

Case No. 42-1419

Dear Mr. Cafaro:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your complaint in the above named case.

The complaint alleges that the Activity violated Sections 

19(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of Executive Order 11491 by withholding 

a promotion from you, by assigning heavy work to you and by antiunion remarks made by your supervisor to employees.

Investigation of the complaint showed that the supervisor did 

make anti-union remarks and that when this was brought to the 

notice of the Activity prompt steps were taken to bring a stop to 

such supervisory remarks by the posting of appropriate notices.

The Activity also agreed to post a formal notice submitted by the 

Area Office of the Department of Labor as an acceptable settlement 

of the 19(a) (1) allegation of the complaint.

The Regional Administrator dismissed the 19(a) (1) allegation 

on the basis that the offer of the 60 day posting of the formal 

LMSA notice was a satisfactory offer of settlement under the 

Regulations of the Assistant Secretary of that part of the case.

He dismissed the 19(a) (2), (4) and (5) allegations on the grounds 

that no reasonable basis for the 19(a) (2) allegation had been 

established and that no evidence was furnished to establish a 

reasonable basis for the 19(a) (4) and (5) allegations.

I agree with the Regional Administrator's conclusions as to 

these allegations. The facts disclosed by the case file show 

that your grievances and difficulties with your supervisor have 

nothing to do with anti-union statements by him.

-2-

In your request for review you complain that the Area Office 

did not come to your area to examine evidence you say you have in 

proof of every charge. The case file indicated that adequate 

information was obtained to support fully the conclusions reached.

However, I wish to advise you that Section 203.2 of the 

Regulations places the responsibility upon the parties to investigate alleged unfair labor practices and to make informal attempts 

to resolve them. Enclosed is a copy of Report No. 24 which, gives 

a detailed explanation of this point.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, your request for the 

reversal of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint 

is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

142
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 12, 1971

Mr. Joseph J. Stengel 

Chief, General Legal Branch 

Operations and Planning Division

Office of Chief Counsel 103

Internal Revenue Service 

1111 Constitution Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20224

Re: Internal Revenue Service

Office of Regional Counsel 

Western Region 

Case No. 70-1877

Dear Mr. Stengel:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for review of the Regional Administrator’s action 

in dismissing your challenge to the adequacy and validity of 

petitioner's showing of interest in the above named case.

You are advised that no provision is contained 

in the Rules and Regulations for review of a Regional Administrator's action dismissing a challenge to the adequacy or to 

the validity of the showing of interest of a labor organization. 

Enclosed are copies of Reports Nos. 21 and 30 relating to these 

points.

Further, your request for review seeks to raise 

issues concerning the inclusion of attorneys within a bargaining unit which are premature at this time and will be entertained by the undersigned only after a record is made in a 

representation proceeding.

Accordingly, your request for review is denied and 

the Regional Administrator is directed to continue processing 

the case.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

JUL 1-2 1971

Mr. Gene A. Gerri 

President

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2335 

114 North Main Street 

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

National Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Station 

Case No, 32-1834 E.O._________

Dear Mr. Gerri:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your objections to the runoff election held in the above 

named case on February 18, 1971.

With respect to Objections Nos. 1 and 2,1 am in agreement 

with the findings of the Regional Administrator. I conclude 

that these two objections lack merit.

In regard to Objection No. 3, which alleged that two 

employees were misinformed as to their voting times and 

rights by their supervisor, it is noted that Local 2335, 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), 

was a party to an agreement signed February 12, 1971, which 

provided for special arrangements for the employees involved 

to vote on working time on the day prior to the election held 

on February 18, 1971. Moreover, the investigation reveals 

that.both of these employees were members of AFGE, and that 

one of them had been a member of AFGE for eight years. In 

these circumstances, it is concluded that AFGE shared in 

the responsibility to inform these employees of the ’’special" 

arrangements made for them to vote on working time. Therefore, 

based on the foregoing, it is concluded that Objection No* 3 

does not have merit*

Also, with respect to Objection No. 3, you contend for 

the first time in your request for review, that the Notice 

of Election posted in Building 301 gave an incorrect date for 

the date of the election held on February 18, 1971, As this 

allegation was not contained in the original objections, it

104
- 2-

1s untimely, in accordance with Report No. 22 (copy enclosed), 

and will not be considered by the undersigned.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's action in dismissing AFGE's 

objections to the runoff election conducted on February 18, 1971 

is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S . D E PA R T M E N T O F LABOR

O F F IC E OF THE ASSIST A N T SEC RET A RY 

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Edward Harvey 

President

Local 1904, American Federation a n c

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

P. 0. Box 231

Eatontown, New Jersey 07724

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command

(TRI-TAC)

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2201

Dear Mr. Harvey:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your request to intervene in the above 

named case.

It is found, In agreement with the Regional 

Administrator, that your request to intervene was untimely 

filed. Further, your request for review fails to show good 

cause for extending the ten day intervention period set forth 

in Section 202.5 of the Regulations or to raise any material 

issue which would warrant reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

action.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your request to intervene is denied.

Sincerely,

July 16, 1971 '

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

144
July 23, 1971

Mr. W. H. Bell

Branch President

Padre Island Branch 1259

National Association of Letter iOfi

Carriers 

6317 Trixie Drive 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78412

Re: U. S. Post Office Department 

Dallas Postal Region 

Dallas, Texas 

Case No. 63-2837 (CA)

Dear Mr. Bell:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your complaint alleging violation of Section 19(a)(3) of 

Executive Order 11491.

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that there is no evidence that the application of the 

Local President of the National Postal Union, Corpus Christi, 

was solicited for a position as ad hoc Hearing OfficerInvestigator in any manner other than through the posting 

of the notice soliciting applicants, nor is there evidence 

that anyone was denied the right to apply or that other than 

equal consideration was given to all who did apply for that 

position.

Further, I find that neither the method of training 

applicants for the position, nor the terms and conditions under 

which the training is given, are objectionable or inconsistent 

with the policies of the Order.

My position with respect to the investigation of 

complaints alleging violations of the unfair labor practice 

provisions of the Order is set forth in my Report on Decision 

No. 24, a copy of which,is attached for your information.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking 

reversal of the dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e A s s is t a n t Se c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT <

Mr, William B. Peer

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen & Peer 

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D.C, 20036

Re: Federal Aviation Administration

Case Nos. 22-2007, 22-2014, 22-2018, 

22-2021, 22-2022, 22-2023, 22-2025, 

22-2026, 22-2027, 22-2028, 22-2029, 

22-2031, 22-2032, 22-2034, 22-2036, 

22-2037, 22-2038, 22-2039, 22-2040, 

22-2041, 22-2042, 22-2043, 22-2045, 

22-2046, 22-2047, 22-2094, 22-2095, 

22-2096, 22-2412, 22-24X3, 22-2415.

Dear Mr. Peer:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissals of the complaints filed 

in the above numbered cases alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) 

and (2) of Executive Order 11491.

As I Informed you in my letter of June 30, 1971, in Cases 

Nos, 22-1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003,

2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 

dealing with the identical Issues presented herein, I am of the 

opinion that my Report No. 25 dated March 1, 1971, is applicable to 

the circumstances of the above numbered cases. Your request for 

review in the instant cases contains no allegations which would lead 

me to alter this opinion. The evidence shows that the complaints 

herein are subject to an established grievance and appeals procedure.

I agree with the determination of the Regional Administrator that 

he had no jurisdiction in these matters.

Accordingly, your request for review is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

ECRETARY

10210 \

iF LABOR

X.V

•i ^ 

S $ - l i

107

145
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

JUL SO 1971

Mr, Edward F. Rains

Acting Commissioner of Customs

Bureau of Customs

The Department of the Treasury

Washington, D. C. 20226

Thomas M. Gittings, Jr., Esq. 108

Suite 520, Shoreham Building

800 Fifteenth Street, N. W.

Washington, D, C. 20005

Re: Bureau of Customs 

Region I

Boston, Massachusetts 

Case No. 31-3306 R.O.

Gentlemen:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

separate requests for review and supporting statements seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's determination finding 

merit to certain objections filed by American Federation of 

Government Employees Customs Council-Region I, and ordering that 

the election be set aside and that a new election be held.

Section 202.19 of the Regulations provides that 

"Upon the conclusion of the election, the Area Administrator 

shall cause to be furnished to the parties a tally of ballots," 

Section 202.20(a) of the Regulations provides a five day 

period for the filing of objections to an election. The investigative file in this matter raises a question as to when a tally 

of ballots was furnished to the parties.

In addition to the procedural issue which goes 

to timeliness of the objections, the requests for review raise 

major policy issues under Executive Order 11491 including the 

right of non-employee organizers to conduct an election campaign 

on the Activity’s premises and tho Activity's duty to provide

mailing services to employees at their duty stations. It is 

concluded that these questions can best be resolved on the 

basis of record testimony.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is 

directed to issue promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

146
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Robert M. Tobias 

^taff Counsel

National Association of Internal 

Revenue Employees 

Suite 1100-711 Fourteenth Street, N. W #

Washington, D,C, 20005

Re: internal Revenue Service 

Jacksonville District 

Jacksonville, Florida 

Case No. 42-1505 (CA)

Dear Mr* Tobias:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your complaint alleging that the Internal Revenue Service 

refused to furnish the home addresses of unit employees in 

violation of Section 19(a)(6) of the Executive Order*

While the request for review was under consideration 

(by the undersigned) a request for dismissal of the request 

for review was received on July 23, 1971 from Mr* Robert 

J* Wilson, Labor Relations Specialist, Internal Revenue Service 

on the ground that the request for review was not filed 

within the 10 day period following the dismissal of the 

complaint on May 20, 1971 as required by the Regulations,

Section 203.7(c), However, a request for review was filed on 

May 26, 1971, coupled with a request for an extension of time 

to July 7, 1971 "to file a statement setting forth facts and 

reasons upon which the request for review is based." An 

extension of time for the stated purpose was granted to close 

of business on June 21, 1971 and a copy of the letter of 

May 28, 1971 granting the extension was sent to Mr* A. J. 

O'Donnell, Jr., District Director, Internal Revenue Service 

in Jacksonville, Florida. Thereafter, an expanded request for 

review was timely filed on June 21, 1971. Accordingly, the 

request to dismiss the request for review as untimely is denied*

I am of the opinion that the request for review 

raises major policy issues which can be resolved best on the

109

- 2 -

basis of record testimony* Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to issue promptly a notice of hearing in 

this proceeding*

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Geoffrey D. Spinks ^

Labor Relations Advisor

Labor & Employee Relations Division 1 i O

Office of Civilian Manpower Management 

Department of the Navy 

Y/ashington, D.C. 20390

Re: Department of the Navy

Corpus Christi Naval Air Station 

Case No* 63-2657 (RO)

Dear Mr* Spinks:

Your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's action in denying a Motion to Dismiss 

Petition in the above named case has been considered carefully*

The Regulations make no provision for a review of 

a Regional Administrator's action in denying a motion to 

dismiss a petition. My views on this subject are set forth in 

Report No. 8 (copy enclosed). Accordingly, your request that 

the Regional Administrator* s action in denying a Motion to 

Dismiss Petition be reversed is denied*

The Regional Administrator stated his intention in 

his Denial of Motion to Dismiss Petition, dated April 11, 1971, 

to issue a Notice of Hearing in this proceeding. I am in 

accord with this course of action because it will provide an 

adequate opportunity for all interested parties to express 

fully their positions on all relevant matters* As a matter 

of procedure, the Activity is herewith directed to post 

promptly the Notice to Employees, LMSA 1102, based upon the 

petition filed on March 4, 1971 by the International Association 

of Firefighters, AFL-CIO in the above named case.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr*

Assistant Secretary of Labor

-

May 14, 1971

William B. Peer, Esq.

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, 4-4 4

Cohen & Peer AJ.X

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

New York Air Route Traffic 

' Control Center 

Case No. 30-3213 E. 0.

Dear'Mr. Peer:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator’s denial of PATCO, NYARTCC 

Chapter’s request to intervene in the above-named case.

In all the circumstances, I conclude that the Regional Administrator’s action was proper. Thus, in the PATCO decision, A/SLMR 

No. 10, I stated that,

"until such time as the Professional Air Traffic 

Controller\s Organization, Inc., affiliated with 

the National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association AFL-CIO (PATC0-MEBA) can demonstrate 

to ray satisfaction that it has complied with my 

Decision and Order, and that it will comply in 

the future with the provisions of the Executive 

Order, I shall not permit it to utilize the procedures available to a labor organization within 

the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Executive 

Order.n (emphasis added)

The above statement clearly indicates that to permit intervention in the subject case by a chapter of PATC0-MEBA at a time 

when there has been no finding by the Assistant Secretary of compliance with the Decision and Order in A/SLMR No. 10 would be 

inconsistent with that Decision and Order. With respect to your 

contention that footnote 5 in A/SLMR No. 10 provides a basis for 

intervention in this matter, it should be noted that this footnote,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e A s sis t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

148
which states in pertinent part that "Recognitions granted to PATCO 

under Executive Order 10988 are not affected by this Order...", 

is applicable to that portion of the body of the Decision and Order 

which states that pending PATCO-MEBA petitions will be dismissed.

In this context, the import of footnote 5 was to indicate that the 

Decision and Order dismissing pending PATCO-MEBA petitions was 

not, of itself, intended to affect existing recognitions. On the 

other hand, consistent with the above-cited language of the 

Decision and Order denying to PATCO-MEBA the utilization of the 

Executive Order's procedures until such time as there has been a 

finding of compliance, interventions and other participation by 

PATCO-MEBA in any subsequently filed cases under Executive 

Order 11491 was clearly prohibited during the compliance period 

irrespective of any challenge posed to existing representative 

status by PATCO-MEBA.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your motion to intervene in the subject case 

is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. DeWitt M« Kelley

Personnel Officer

Pacific Coast Region

U. S. Geological Survey

345 Middlefield Road

Menlo Park, California 04025

Dear Mr. Kelley:

112

Re: U. S. Geological Survey 

Pacific Coast Center 

Case Ho. 70-1829

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's rulings sustaining 

Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5 filed by National Federation of 

Federal Employees, Local 1549 and ordering a rerun election.

In view of the importance of the issues presented to 

the interpretation and administration of Executive Order 11491 

and further, because various findings of fact of the Regional 

Administrator are disputed, it Is concluded that such Issues, and 

the facts relevant thereto, can be best adduced at a hearing at 

which evidence both testimonial and documentary can be presented.

American Federation of Government Employees Lodge 2120 

because its activities are alleged to have improperly affected 

the election, shall be served with notice and permitted to 

participate in the hearing.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking a 

hearing on Objections 1, 2 and 5 is granted, and the Regional 

Administrator is directed to cause to be issued a notice of hearing 

for this purpose.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Clair D. Olsen 

1048 Klngswood Road 

Kaysville, Utah 84037

A U G 10 1971

113

Re: U. S. Air Force

Hill Air Force Base

Ogden, Utah

Case No. 61-1366 (CA)

Dear Mr. Olsen:

After receipt in this office of your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator’s decision In 

the above case, the Regional Administrator Issued a 

withdrawal of that decision In the light of new factors 

in the case. The case was then reopened at the Regional 

level.

In view of this fact no review has been made, 

nor any action taken by this office on your Request for 

Review. The matter Is being closed in our files.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S . D E PA R T M E N T O F LABOR

O f f i c s o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

AUG 20 1971

Mr. Robert H. Schmidt

President H A

Civilian Personnel Association 

225 South 18th Street 

Philadelphia, Pa. 19103

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Civilian Personnel Field Office 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Case No. 20-2498

Dear Mr, Schmidt:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for review seeking reversal of the Acting Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of your petition in the above 

named case.

It is concluded that your petition was dismissed 

properly by the Acting Regional Administrator. The evidcnco 

reveals that included within the unit sought are categories 

of employees who clcarly are engaged in Federal Personnel 

work in other than a purely clerical capacity, a fact which 

you admit in your request for review. Section 10(b)(2) of 

the Executive Order 11491 states, in pertinent part, that, 

a unit shall not be established if it includes an employee 

engaged in Federal personnel work in other than a purely 

clerical capacity.

In these circumstances, your request for reversal 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal oi the 

petition is denied.

Sincerely,

w. J. Usery, Jr, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

150
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 20, 1971

Mr. Carlos C. Ogden 

State Director

California Selective Service

System 115

Federal Building

801 I Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Re: Selective Service System 

State of California 

Sacramento, Calif orniaN 

Case No. 70-1824

Dear Mr. Ogden:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for review of the Regional Administrator’s Report 

and Findings on Objections, finding merit to certain 

objections filed by the National Federation of Federal 

Employees (NFFE) to a mail ballot election completed on 

January 28, 1971 and directing a rerun election. Based 

upon a full review of the circumstances surrounding the 

conduct of the election, the evidence submitted and the 

positions offered by the parties, it is concluded that 

the Regional Administrator’s decision was warranted.

I reject your first contention that insufficient 

evidence was presented to support the finding of the Regional 

Administrator with regard to alleged improper surveillance 

by a supervisor at Los Angeles Group Board nE” conference 

room. I agree with the Regional Administrator that the 

unexplained presence of the supervisor in the room set 

aside for the use of a union representative to confer with 

employees tended to inhibit employees from conferring with 

the representative, and thus interfered with their rights 

under Executive Order 11491. Accordingly, I conclude that 

the Regional Administrator was correct in his decision as 

to that portion of objection 1 (c).

Your second contention that the notice posted by 

supervisors at Los Angeles Group Board "E" and at San Jose, 

urging employees to vote because failure to do so would 

constitute a "yes" vote for the union, could not have affected 

the results of the election, based on the statistical data, 

also must be rejected. In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I am of the opinion that such notices could well have 

discouraged employees disposed to vote for the union from 

casting ballots, since the clear impression given by the 

notices was that failure to vote would be equivalent to a 

"yes" vote. Your statistical analysis is conjecture and 

is considered to be inapplicable to the situation. I agree 

with the decision of the Regional Administrator in this regard.

Accordingly, your request that the Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Objections be reversed is 

denied and the Regional Administrator is directed to proceed 

with the processing of the case as set forth in his Report 

and Findings on Objections.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
AUG 27 1971

Mr. Phillip E. Rosen j j p

Brown, Rosen, Gentile & Rodgers 1J.O

170 Westminister Street 

Providence, Rhode Island 02903

Re: u. S. Naval. Station 

Newport, Rhode Island 

Caso No. 31-4387 E.O.

Dear Mr. Rosen:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

reauest for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of the RO petition filed by the Fraternal Order of Police, 

I/Odge No. 29 (FOP).

The petition filed by FOP on February 10, 1971 

was dismissed by the Regional Administrator based on his 

determination that it was not timely filed since at the 

time of the filing there was in existence a written agreement 

executed on February 4, 1971, covering the claimed employees 

which barred the processing of FOP's petition.

The evidence establishes that employees in the unit 

claimed by FOP are guards within the meaning of Executive 

Order 11491. Previously, they were Included with nonguard 

employees in a unit covered by an agreement executed under 

Executive Order 10988 between the Activity and local 190, 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE). 

That agreement expired In August 1968 and did not contain an 

automatic renewal clause. At AFGE's request in early 

December, 1970, the parties, in January 1971, initiated 

negotiations for a new agreement covering the same unit and 

ah agreement was signed on February 4, 1971. It was approved 

at a higher management level on March 19, 1971.

Your request for review states that the employees 

FOP seeks to represent are guards, and contends that the 

agreement signed by the parties on February 4, 1971, should not 

bar the filing of the petition herein as the employees covered 

by that agreement include guards and nonguards. In these

".stances, you contend that in view of the Executive 

Oi • 11491 prohibition against such a combined unit of 

employees, the agreement bar principle should not be applied. 

Moreover, you assert that the Activity had knowledge of FOP's 

petition at the time it entered into the agreement with AFGE.

Although recognizing the fact that Section 10 (b)(3) 

of the Order states that a unit shall not be established if 

it includes any guard together with other employees, I find 

that In the particular circumstances of this case, the February 4,

1971, negotiated agreement between the Activity and AFGE 

constituted a bar to the processing of FOP's petition, which 

was filed in the LMSA Area Office on February 10, 1971. Thus, 

the "legislative history" of Executive Order 11491 contained 

in the Study Committee's Report and Recommendations on I.aborManagement Relations In the Federal Service, "dated August. 1969. 

Indicated clearly that the requirements that guards be represented In separate units by organizations which do not admit 

to membership and are not affiliated directly or Indirectly 

with organizations which admit to membership, employees other 

than guards, would not affect existing units or representation 

but would be applied In all unit and representation determinations 

under the new Order. Based on this clear "legislative history," 

it Is my view that where, as here, a unit containing guards and 

nonguards has been in existence for several years and Is covered 

by a negotiated agreement, a petition filed during the term 

of such agreement will be barred unless filed in accordance 

with the requirements set forth In Section 202.3(c) of the 

Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

With respect to your contention that the Activity 

entered Into the agreement with AFGE at a time when it had 

knowledge of FOP's petition, I do not consider such a contention 

to be relevant where, as here, the evidence established that 

the petition had not been filed with the Labor-Management 

Services Administration's Area Office until after the signing 

of the February 4, 1971 agreement.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's action is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

152
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOP.

August 30, 1971

Roger P. Kaplan, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel „ , 117

National Association of Government Employees 

Suite 512, 1341 G Street, N. W. '

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Department of Commerce

National Weather Service 

Case No. 37-932 E,0.

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the 

petition for an election filed in the above case on March 8,

1971 by National Association of Government Employees (NAGE).

The evidence establishes that the parent organization, 

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), in behalf of 

its Local 2613, has bargained with the Activity since 1970; the 

parties executed a multi-unit negotiated agreement which currently 

covers employees in the requested NAGE unit; AFGE has intervened 

in the subject case, seeking dismissal of the petition; and the 

AFGE, as signatory to the multi-unit agreement, has stated that 

it is the currently recognized exclusive representative for all 

employees in the Weather Forecast Office, San Juan, Puerto Rico 

and that it wishes to retain its status as exclusive representative 

for those employees covered under its exclusive recognition. In 

this regard no evidence has been presented that AFGE is either unwilling or unable to represent the employees or to administer the 

existing agreement.

In these circumstances, and noting that the negotiated 

agreement herein, which does not terminate by its terms until 

August 24, 1972, covers all unit employees of the Activity ret

-2-

gardless of their membership or affiliation in AFGE, I find that 

the agreement bars an election at this time.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the petition is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o p t b b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

AU G 3 0 871

Mr. William B. Peer

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, 1.18

Cohen and Peer 

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Cases Number 22-2651 (CA) 

22-2654 (CA) 

j

Dear Mr. Peer:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for review of the Acting Regional Administrator's 

dismissals of the complaints filed in the above numbered 

cases alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of 

Executive Order 11491.

As I informed you in my letters of June 30, 1971 

and July 27, 1971 relating to a number of cases dealing with 

the identical issue presented herein, X am of the opinion 

that my Report No. 25 dated March 1, 1971, is applicable 

to the circumstances of the above numbered cases. Your 

request for review in the instant cases contains no 

allegations which would lead me to alter this opinion.

The evidence shows that the complaints herein are subject 

to an established grievance and appeals procedure. I 

agree with the determination of the Acting Regional 

Administrator that he had no jurisdiction in these matters.

Accordingly, your request for review is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

&

O f f i c e o f t u b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 3, 1971

Mr. Guy Colletti

National Representative „ „ , 1 1 9

American Federation of Government Employees 

512 Gallivan Boulevard, Suite 2 

Dorchester, Massachusetts 02124

Re: U. S. Naval War College 

Newport Naval Base 

Newport, Rhode Island 

Case No. 31-3348 E.0.

Dear Mr. Colletti:

The undersigned has considered carefuliy your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of certain 

of your objections to the runoff election held in the above. • 

named case on December 3, 1970.

You object that National Association of Government 

Employees (NAGE), by offering free accidental death and dismemberment insurance and free legal services, made false and 

misleading statements in a leaflet which it distributed to 

employees prior to the runoff election. You contend that 

such statements served as an economic inducement to employees 

and thereby interfered with the election.

The investigation revealed that accidental death and 

dismemberment insurance and legal services were offered by your 

organization as well as by NAGE as an incident of membership, 

and that it became a hotly-contested campaign issue as to which 

of the policies and services offered were the better. Examination 

of the leaflet to which you object discloses that it contained 

nothing more than legitimate campaign propaganda. Moreover, I 

agree with the Regional Administrator that, in the absence of 

evidence that NAGE offered or promised employees free insurance 

or that its insurance was contingent upon the results of the 

election, this case is" distinguishable from Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

A/SLMR No. 31. In this respect I note particularly that NAGE 

explained to employees during the campaign the exact manner in

154
which its insurance plan was financed.

Your objection to the reference in another NAGE leaflet 

to the expiration date of your insurance is that it created such 

confusion among employees that the atmosphere for a free election 

was destroyed. I do not agree. The Regional Administrator concluded correctly that the employees had before them all the 

necessary information to evaluate fairly the claims made by NAGE. 

Thus, his finding no merit to this objection was warranted.

Your final objection is directed primarily to the fact 

that you were unable to respond to a leaflet also containing a 

reference to the expiration date of your insurance policy. Your 

request for review argues that, contrary to the finding by the 

Regional Administrator, you had no opportunity to make an effective reply and that, because of the close results of the 

rerun election it could reasonably be found that, like Army 

Materiel Command, Army Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan, 

A/SLMR No. 56, the leaflet here, had an impact upon the election 

results. Your argument fails to recognize that in the present 

case, NAGE's leaflet contained no statements which had not 

previously been made, and to which you had opportunity to reply. 

Indeed, in your request for review you acknowledge this fact 

when you state, "The insurance of both organizations had been an 

issue in this campaign."

Accordingly, your request that the runoff election be 

set aside is denied, and the Regional Administrator is hereby 

directed to have an appropriate certification of representative 

issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

.«yAK. I \ Wi’

O f f i c j : o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr. N. T. Wolkomir 

President

National Federation of Federal 120

Employees 

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: U.S. Army Engineer Center 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

Case No. 22-2234

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of the objections filed by the National Federation of 

Federal Employees, Local 1522 (NFFE) to the runoff election 

held in the above named case on February 9, 1971.

The first seven objections were directed toward 

three pieces of campaign literature distributed by the 

National Association of Government Employees (NAGE). 

Essentially, the Regional Administrator found that NFFE 

had ample time in each case to respond to the alleged 

misrepresentations made by NAGE, and further, that none 

of the alleged objectionable material affected the results 

of the election. The Regional Administrator noted that 

in some instances NFFE did reply to the alleged objectionable 

material. After an examination of the Regional Administrator s 

findings, and the campaign literature in question, I find 

that the dismissal of these objections by the Regional 

Administrator was warranted.

I noted your contention that the Regional 

Administrator's decision does not stop the use of 

campaign literature which you believe is objectionable 

and inaccurate.

155
-2-

I certainly .do not condone the use of misrepresentations or untruths in representation election campaigning. 

However, it should be obvious that election campaign conduct 

cannot be controlled in advance. I am a strong believer 

in the principle that in the long run in elections truth 

is the best weapon against misrepresentations and untruths. 

Where conditions warrant it, objectionable conduct will 

result in elections being set aside. It is considered to 

be unreasonable to try and state in advance a general rule 

that will encompass all "objectionable conduct" sufficient 

to set aside an election.

You will recall that in my rulings in the requests 

for review of cases of Red River Army Depot, Department of 

the Army, Case No. 63-2044(E).and Department of Army.

Toole Army Depot, Case No. 61-1041(E), which were addressed 

to you, I said the -following, "Precision and accuracy 

of statements are not always attained or expected by the 

voters who ordinarily view such statements in the context 

of the election situation." I regard the foregoing 

statement as being applicable to the three pieces of 

NAGE campaign literature which were the subject of NFFE's 

•first seven objections in this case.

The request for review poses an additional 

question with respect to Objection 4. In dismissing 

this objection, which was concerned with one of the 

pieces of literature mentioned above, the Regional 

Administrator found that no evidence was introduced to 

show how it affected the results of the election. The 

request for review asserts, "No type of pre-election 

conduct would ever be declared to have affected an 

election if the party filing a complaint was required 

to prove to the satisfaction of a Regional Administrator 

that the conduct definitely affected the resultsi" This 

statement requires consideration of two points. First, 

if the alleged objectionable conduct cannot be shown to 

have affected the conduct of the election or affected 

the results of the election, then it would not be a 

sufficient reason to set aside an election. Secondly, 

Section 202.20 of the Regulations states: "The objecting 

party shall bear the burden of proof regarding all matters 

alleged in its objections to conduct affecting the results 

of the election."

Objection 8 alleges that a NAGE local union official 

had provoked two NFFE representatives, while they were 

assembling NFFE literature, and shoved some literature to 

the floor which nearly caused a fight. The Regional Administrator 

found that NFFE did not indicate when, where and under what 

circumstances the alleged incident occurred or show how the 

action affected the results of the election, and he rejected 

the objection.

The request for review does not deny the omission 

of details, but states, "we assume that such omissions 

would not render proper (this obviously improper 

electioneering conduct by NAGE personnel." I conclude 

that Objection 8, as well as the request for review, 

presents a conclusion unsupported by evidence, and I agree 

with the Regional Administrator that this objection should 

be rejected.

Objection 9 alleges that a NAGE local union 

officer wore a NAGE badge during working hours on the day 

of the election. The Regional Administrator found NFFE 

did not charge the NACE representative with electioneering 

in or near the polling area, or introduce any evidence that 

he had, in fact, electioneered around the polls, or that 

the wearing of the badge affected the outcome of the election.

The request for review did not question the Regional 

Administrator's determination that this objection did not 

have merit and I agree with this finding of the Regional 

Administrator.

Dased upon a full review of the evidence 

submitted and positions taken by the parties, it is 

concluded that the dismissal of all the objections filed 

by NFFE in this case by the Regional Administrator 

was warranted. Accordingly, the request for review 

seeking the reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the objections is denied.

Sincerely,

W.J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 3, 1971

Mr. H. C. Summers

Grand Lodge Representative

International Association of Machinists

and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO 1 2 1

504 Glenn Building

102 Marietta Street, N. W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Re: Department of the Navy

Naval Air Rework Facility 

Naval Air Station 

Jacksonville, Florida 

Case No. 42-1374(RO)

Dear Mr. Summers:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of all objections filed by Naval 

'Air Lodge No. 1630, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 

Workers, AFL-CIO, (IAM) to the conduct of an election held among certain 

employees of the Activity on December 17, 1970. Based upon a full review 

of the objections to the election in the subject case and the evidence 

supplied in support thereof, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the objections was warranted.

Your first ground for reversal of the Regional Administrator relates 

to his dismissal of Objection 1 and 2(a) and (b), and complains of the 

Regional Administrator’s refusal to find that the National Association 

of Government Employees, Local R5-82, (NAGE), in allegedly violating a 

consent election "side" agreement between NAGE and IAM by engaging in 

solicitation of signatures on petitions for an election, and by requesting 

employees to join NAGE and assist it by distributing literature, engaged 

in conduct which required the setting aside of the election. In support 

of your contention you allege that agreements setting forth an orderly 

procedure for electioneering is just as much a part of the consent 

election agreement as the time, date and place for holding the election 

and any violation of such an agreement should result in the election 

being set aside and a new election being ordered. I refer you to Report 

on a Decision, No. 20, which states that although "side” agreements are 

not prohibited, the Assistant Secretary will not undertake to police 

such agreements and any breach thereof, absent evidence that the conduct

-2-

constituting such breach had an independent improper effect on the 

conduct or results of the election. I find that no evidence has been 

submitted showing that the alleged breach of the parties' side agreement 

had an independent improper effect on the conduct of the election and, 

accordingly, agree with the Regional Administrator's dismissal of Objection 

1 and 2(a) and (b).

Your second ground complains of the findings with respect to Objections 

4 and 5, which allege, respectively, polling place violations by a NAGE 

election observer by his wearing of a NAGE insignia in the vicinity of the 

polling place, and the wearing of a NAGE insignia by a NAGE representative 

on three separate occasions in the vicinity of a polling area. You complain essentially that the Regional Administrator's finding with respect 

to Objection 4, that at most such conduct was inconsequential, was incorrect since such conduct was inconsistent with election observer responsibilities, and was violative of the Instructions to Election Observers.

With respect to Objection No. 5, you allege, contrary to the Regional 

Administrator's finding, that such conduct interfered with the employees' 

free choice and was grounds for setting aside the election. I find, in 

agreement with the Regional Administrator that with respect to Objection

4, that there was no evidence to indicate that the insignia was worn by 

the Observer while on duty, that he engaged in, any campaigning during the 

time the polls were open, or that the incident was ever reported to the 

Labor Department representatives. With respect to Objection 5, I find 

that the individual mentioned therein was not an agent or representative 

of NAGE, but merely a rank and file adherent. Moreover, the fact that such 

person may have lingered near the polls for a limited period of time was 

not controlling, particularly in the absence of. evidence that he distributed literature or engaged in other campaigning. In these circumstances, I 

agree with the Regional Administrator's dismissal of Objections 4 and 5.

Your third ground for reversal deals with the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of Objection 6, concerning the alleged misrepresentation of NAGE 

with regard to statements in its literature which were circulated at the 

Activity stating that "free" accidental death and dismemberment insurance 

would accompany membership. You complain that this literature was a gross 

misrepresentation and in your request for review stated that some of the 

material distributed by NAGE attested to the fact that such insurance was 

paid out of union dues and therefore was not "free" as advertised by NAGE. 

Your request for review relies in part on ray decision in Norfolk Naval 

Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 31, which treated a related issue and sets aside 

the election therein. It appears the apparent representation of free 

insurance was made in context with other campaign propaganda contained 

in distributed NAGE literature. The IAM had ample opportunity prior to
-3-

the election to rebut and rectify any false, inaccurate or misleading 

statements contained in such literature and appears to have done so 

with regard to free insurance on a number of occasions. Moreover, 

noting as you admit that NAGE has distributed material denoting that 

"insurance is paid for out of union dues" and NAGE's newspaper advertisement of December 16 where the union admitted not giving free insurance, it appears that NAGE was seeking to clarify for the employees 

any misunderstanding on this subject. In all the circumstances, I find 

that the employees were provided with a sufficient basis for making an 

independent evaluation of NAGE's alleged misrepresentation regarding its 

offer of free insurance. As stated in Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR 

No. 31, I view that such a situation is handled best through the election 

campaign process and accordingly agree with the Regional Administrator's 

conclusion to dismiss Objection 6.

Your fourth ground for reversal referring to Objection 7, deals 

with violation of the "side" agreement made between the unions prior 

to the election, by virtue of a full page advertisement by NAGE in the 

Base's newspaper. There is no allegation that the content of the 

advertisement is improper. I find therefore, as noted in the foregoing 

discussion with respect to Objections 1 and 2, absent evidence that 

conduct constituting a breach of a "side" agreement had an independent 

improper effect on the conduct or result of the election, I will not 

undertake to police such agreements.

Your fifth and last ground for reversal refers to Objection 8, and 

alleges disparity of treatment by the Activity, as to checking in and 

out of the Activity's Security Department, and the designation of areas 

used for electioneering purposes. You complain that the Regional 

Administrator improperly dismissed the objection on the ground of 

failure to proffer evidence in support thereof. In support of this 

objection you offer merely conclusionary language covering the objection in extremely general terms in your letter to the Area Office in response to its request for supporting evidence. At no time did you come forward with details.

Investigation revealed that the Activity was strictly neutral in 

its treatment of both unions. It disclosed that election arrangements 

were made with the Activity's Commanding Officer at a meeting attended 

by all parties, that channels of communications between each labor 

organization and employees were unimpeded, and that the Intervenor's 

status as the incumbent labor organization did not adversely affect its 

ability to gain access to employees. The objecting party bears the 

burden of proof regarding all matters alleged in its objection as set

-4-

forth in Section 202.20(d) of the Regulations. The Intervenor's offer 

to have its staff members testify in regard to this objection but without any more by way of evidence, does not satisfy the burden.

Based upon a full review of*the evidence submitted and positions 

taken by the parties, it is concluded that the dismissal of Objections 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 by the Regional Administrator was warranted.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

158
O F F IC E o r THE ASSISTAN T SRCMCTANY 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.b. DEPARTMENT OF LAbuK

30

Mr* Joseph Trush

President, American Federation 4 p o

of Government Employees Local 2735 

300 Main Street 

Orange, New Jersey 07059

Be: Veterans Administration Hospital 

East Orange, New Jersey 

Case No, 32-2230

Dear Mr* Trush:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of your complaint in the above named case*

The Regional Administrator advised you that your 

complaint was untimely because it was not received by June 21,

1971, which was the last day of the 30th day time limit for 

filing pursuant to Section 203*2 of the Regulations and that

further proceedings, therefore, were unwarranted*

In your request for review you do not deny that the 

complaint was filed untimely but contend that Its dismissal by 

the Regional Administrator “on purely procedural grounds would 

not be In accord with the spirit and purpose of Executive Order 

but only within the strict and literal interpretation of the 

Rules and Regulations." You refer to Section 205.7 of the 

Regulations and in effect contend that the rules should be 

liberally construed so as to penait acceptance of your complaint, 

even though filed one day late*

From a review of the facts disclosed by the case fils, 

it Is found that your complaint was postmarked on the 21st day 

of June and received by the Area Office In Newark, New Jersey 

on June 22, 1971* It Is clear, therefore, that the filing 

was not within the 30 day period allowed for filing from the

date (May 22, 1971) the final decision by the Activity was 

received by you*

- 2 -

Further, in the circumstances, I do not view the 

provisions of Section 205*7 of the Regulations to be applicable 

In this case as there was no evidence presented requiring a 

"liberal" construction of the Regulations* Thus, the evidence 

did not establish that strict application of the timeliness 

provision of 8ectlon 203*2 of the Regulations "will work surprise 

or injustice or Interfere with the proper effectuation of.the 

Order***

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is

denied*

Sincerely,

W« J* Usery, Jr* 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
Mr. Rexford T. Brown

Mr. Gordon P. Ramsey 123

Gadsby and Hannah

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Internal Revenue Service 

Boston District 

Case No. 31-4374 E.O.

Gentlemen:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of objections filed 

by National Association of Government Employees Local Rl-30 

(NAGE1 to conduct affecting the results of the election hftld 

among certain employees of the Activity on April 22, 23, and 

26, 1971.

Based upon a full review of the evidence submitted 

and the positions offered by the parties, it is concluded that 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal was warranted.

I must reject your contention that the Regional 

Administrator failed to interpret properly Section 202.20 of 

the Regulations. In cases involving objections to conduct of 

the election or conduct affecting the results of the election 

the objecting party bears the burden of proof regarding all 

matters alleged in the objections, including the submission 

of evidence to the Area Administrator, as well as during a 

formal hearing on the matter.'

The file reveals that NAGE was given a full and 

complete opportunity to present evidence in support of its 

objections. The evidence in the file did not reveal that any 

employees of the Activity had received bulletins containing 

alleged misstatements concerning NAGE's dues, or that more than 

two copies of such bulletins were in existence. In these 

circumstances, it is concluded that the evidence submitted by 

the objecting party was insufficient to raise a relevant question 

of fact which may have affected the results of the election.

- 2 -

Accordingly, your request that the election be set 

aside or that a notice of hearing be issued is denied, and the 

Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate 

certification of representative Issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

160
s t f 30

Mr. Daniel J. Kearney 

National Vice President

American Federation of Government Employees 

512 Gallivan Boulevard, Suite 2 

Dorchester, Massachusetts 02124

Re: Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

Unit II, .Boston. Area JJfflce 

Boston, /Massachusetts 

Case No. 31-4380 B.O.

Dear Mr. Kearney:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your 

oral protest of the tally of the ballots in the above naned case.

It is found, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

that the oral protest was timely and met* the requirements of 

Section 202.20(a) of the Regulations In view of the advice received 

at the election from the U(SA representative that the oral protest 

would be ruled upon by the Area Administrator at a later date.

Your oral protest of the tally was based upon your challenge 

of one ballot which you contend should have been tallied as a void 

ballot by the LMSA representative. A ruling that the ballot was 

valid gave a majority of the valid ballots counted to National 

Association of Government Employees (NAGE), whereas a ruling that 

the ballot was void would have required a run-off election between 

NAGE and your organization.

The ballot In question was one affording professional 

employees two choices, (1) whether the voter desired to be included 

with the non-professional employees for the purpose of exclusive 

recognition and (2), whether the voter desired to be represented by 

NAGE, American Federation of Government Employees, (AFGE) or neither 

of these organizations for the purpose of exclusive recognition.

The voter who cast the questioned ballot did not mark the first section 

of the ballot and voted for NAGE In the second section of the ballot. 

The ballot contained, in pertinent part, the following language:

U.o. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O p h c b o p t h b A ssist a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 V &

"This ballot is to determine the unit, as well 

as the exclusive representative, if any, under the

- 2-

provlslons of Executive Order 11491, for the unit 

which you designate.

Answer both questions below."

the Regional Administrator found that the ballot in question, 

was a valid ballot despite the fact that the voter did not answer 

the first question. I disagree with his conclusion in this respect.

The voter was instructed by tho language on the ballot to answer 

both questions. It is found that his failure to do so voided his 

ballot, thus necessitating a revised tally of the ballots.

Accordingly, your recjuest ,1s granted and the Regional 

Administrator is hereby directed to cause a revised tally of the 

ballots to be issued consistent with this ruling, and thereafter, to 

cause a runoff election between NAGE and AFGE to be conducted.

Sincerely,

W. tJ. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U .S . D fcPA R T M E N T <Jt- LABOR

O F F IC E O F T H E A SSIST A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

WASHINGTON

5£P 30 ^71

Mr* Irving I. Geller 

Director

Legal & Employee Relations

National Federation of Federal 125

Employees 

1737 H Street, N* tf*

Washington, D. C* 20006

Re: Minot Air Force Base 

North Dakota 

Case No* 60-1893 (E)

Dear Mr* Geller:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for reviev of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your complaint alleging violation of Section 19(a)(6) of 

Executive Order 11491*

In agreement with the Regional Administrator! I 

find that the evidence establishes that the Activity has 

been willing to negotiate supplements to the existing agreement 

at reasonable times, and further, that in meetings with NFFE 

Local 1041 during working hours it has discussed Issues 

within the categories listed in tho agenda submitted originally 

for negotiation* In these circumstances, I find that the 

Activity has not refused to consult, confer, or negotiate 

within the meaning of Section 19(a)(6) of the Executive Order*

With respect to your request that additional investigation be made in the case, my position,is that the complainant 

and the respondent have the responsibility of investigating 

the alleged unfair labor practices and the complainant bears 

the burden of proof throughout all phases of the case* This 

is 'more fully explained in Report No* 24, a copy of which is 

enclosed*

Based on the foregoing, your request for the reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is 

denied*

Sincerely,

W* J* Usery, Jr*

Assistant Secretary of Labor

OniCB OF THB A*in1 ANT Sbckjttait 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20210

U.i>. DEPARTMENT OF LAiXJR

Mr. Earl Ricketson 

National Representative

American Federation of Government 126

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1910 Hlghview Avenue 

Akron, Ohio 44301

Re; General Services Administration

Cleveland Field Office 

Cleveland, Ohio 

Case No* 53-3792

Dear Mr* Ricketson:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

request for reviev of the Regional Administrator's 

partial dismissal of the complaint in the above named 

case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(5) and (6) 

of Executive Order 11491 and has concluded that the 

issues presented can be resolved best on the basis 

of record testimony.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is 

directed to reinstate that portion of the complaint 

dismissed, which alleged the improper handling of a 

grievance filed by Mr* Robert A. Krueger, and to 

issue promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding*

Sincerely,

W* J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
L j * DEPARTM ENT O F LABOR

O F F IC E O F T H E A SSIST A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A S H IN G T O N

OCT 2.1 1971

Mr. Gordon P. Ramsey

Mr. Rexford T. Brown 1 2 7

Gadsby & Hannah

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, No W„

Washington, Da C a 20006

Re: Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Case No„ 22-2551 (CA)

Dear Sirs:

The undersigned has considered carefully your 

Request for Review seeking to reverse the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint brought against the 

above named Activity on May 14, 1971, by the National 

Association of Government Employees (NAGE) which alleged 

electioneering and campaigning, and soliciting of employees 

on the Activity's premises during working hours by Messrs. 

Washington and Smith, International Representatives of the 

Metal Trades Council (MTC)0

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I 

am of the opinion that tho evidence submitted, failed to 

establish that Messrs0 Washington and Smith electioneered 

and campaigned, and solicited employees on the Activity's 

premises during working hoursf or that the Activity was 

aware of and condoned any such alleged action in violation 

of Section 19(a)(1) and (3) of Executive Order 11491. It 

appears that the Activity took immediate and appropriate 

action to correct any "breach of shipyard rules1’ by representatives of the MTC when the breach was brought to its 

attention. The specific breach by MTC mentioned by the 

Activity in its letter of May 12, 1971 pertained to the 

unauthorized presence of the representatives in the area in 

which they were observed, and nothing more.

Accordingly, your Request for Review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the 

complaint i» denied.

In your Request for Review, you have asked as 

part of an appropriate remedy that the election held on —

May 24, 1971, be set aside. Your attention is directed to 

Section 202.19 of the Regulations which provides that "Upon 

the conclusion of the election, the Area Administrator shall 

cause to be furnished to the parties a tally of ballots 

Section 202«20(a) of the Regulations provides a five-day 

period for filing of objections to an election.

As a determination upholding the Regional Administrators dismissal of the complaint has been made with respect 

to your Request for Review, I shall direct the Regional 

Administrator to select the appropriate Area Administrator to 

open and count the ballots and to furnish the parties with 

a tally of ballots.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jx8*, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
o c '« 'sn

Mr. Daniel J. Kearney 

National Vice President 

American Federation of Government 

Employees 

512 Gallivan Boulevard 

Dorchester, Massachusetts 02124

Re* Navy Exchange

U.S. Naval Air Station 

Quonset Point, Rhode Island 

Case No. 31-4623 E.O.

Dear Mr. Kearney:

The undersigned has considered carefully your Request 

for Review of the Acting Regional Administrator’s dismissal 

of the complaint filed in the above-named case.

The issue for consideration is the dismissal of the 

Section 19(a)(6) portion of the complaint which alleged thiat 

the Activity had refused to consult with the American 

Federation of Government Employees, Local 767, with respect 

to wage survey procedures.

It is concluded that the Section 19(a)(6) 

allegation raises issues which can be resolved best on the 

basis of record testimony. Accordingly, the Regional 

Administrator is directed to issue promptly a notice of 

hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O p t ic s o f t h b A s s is t a n t S b c r b t a e y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

W. J.. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

.1. . i.v j_ i » V !\ i »-.i t... . > V -J

O f f i c b o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S b c r b t a b t 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

oVl

Mr. Daniel J. Kearney 

National Vice President

American Federation of Government 4 O Q

Employees, AFL-CIO ,

512 Gallivan Boulevard, Suite 2 '

Dorchester, Massachusetts 02124

Bet Naval Air Station Commissary 

Stores

Quonset Point, Rhode Island

Case No. 31—3396 B.O.

Dear Hr. Kearney:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for reviev of the Regional Administrator's action setting aside 

the runoff election conducted among certain employees of the 

Activity, on March 25, 1971, In the above named case.

The Regional Administrator overruled two of the three 

objections filed but determined that the runoff election should 

be set. aside on the basis of his finding merit to Objection No. 2. 

The National Association of Government Employees, Local R1**7(1UQB), 

all.g.d in Objection 2 that:

"The American Federation of Government Employees 

(AFGE) willfully and wickedly distributed...on 

March 23, 1971, a flyer stating "NAGE raids In 

Treasury. NAGE President Junkets high In the skyln newly bought 'Lear Jet'-- local union demands 

'money* and representation.'"

On the basis of the information before him, the Regional 

Administrator determined that the flyer contained a deliberate 

misstatement of fact, and that NAGE did not have an adequate 

opportunity to reply to the flyer. As a result, the Regional 

Administrator found that the flyer Impaired the ability of the 

voters to exercise intelligently their franchise. Finding merit to

this objection, the Regional Administrator set aside the election 

•hioh had been won by AFGE by • 26-15 margin*

164
A review of the investigative facts does not support tho 

Regional Administrator's findings on either of the points referred 

to. Thus, no evidence was presented that American Federation of 

Government Employees (AFGE) campaigners tot the Activity prior to 

the election had knowledge on March 23 or 24 of the Report and 

Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner, which was issued on February M f

1971 in the matter of Army Materiel Command, A/SLMR Ho, 38 in which 

he found the allegation that NAGE owned a Lear Jet to be untrue*

Further, although the Regional Administrator asserted as a fact 

that the flyer was distributed on March 24, giving only a day for 

a reply correcting the untrue allegation contained therein, the 

weight of the evidence appears to establish that the flyer in 

question was circulated on March 23, two days before the election*

In this regard it was noted that the quotation above, from NAGE's 

Objection 2, states that the flyer was distributed on March 23 and 

AFQE similarly asserts that It was distributed on the morning of 

March 23*

Elections will be set aside where deception occurs that 

constitutes campaign trickery involving a substantial misrepresentation of fact which Impairs the employees* ability to vote 

intelligently on the issues, and there is not time for the offended 

party to make an effective reply. See the Army Materiel Command 

case, cited above, which discusses the identical campaign flyer 

Involved in this case.

It is found, consistent with that decision, that the 

flyer In question was readily recognizable by the voters as 

self-serving campaign propaganda and was not of such a nature aa

to deprive the enployees of their ability to vote intelligently 

on the issues. Further, it is found that the evidence f&lls to

establish either that AFGE circulated the flyer with knowledge of

its untruthful character or that NAGE had insufficient time to 

make an effective reply, particularly in view of the number of 

eligible voters (54) to be reached.

Accordingly, the determination of the Regional Administrator 

that the runoff election be set aside is overruled and the Regional 

Administrator is directed to cause an appropriate certification of

representative to be issued*

Sincerely,

W, J, Usery, Jr,

Assistant Secretary Of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

NOV 19 1971

Mr. Irving X. Geller 

Director

Legal and Employee Relations

National Federation of Federal j

Employees A O U

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of the Air Force 

Electronics System Division 

Case No. 31-3338

Dear Mr. Geller:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the election 

in the instant matter.

I have concluded, in agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, that in filing its objections with the Area Administrator, NFFE 

did not comply with the service requirements of Section 202.20 of the 

Regulations in' that it failed to serve copies of such objections simultaneously on the other parties. The evidence reveals that although NFFE 

made timely service of its objections upon the Area Administrator, it 

failed to make simultaneous service on the other parties to the proceeding although NFFE's representative stated 'in the objection, letter 

that it was filed in accordance with Section 202.20 and further certified 

that all interested parties had been served copies of the objections.

As stated in your request for review, copies of the objections were not 

served upon the other parties until July.15, 1971, approximately one week 

later.

In view of the foregoing, and in accordance with my ruling in 

Report No. 14 (copy enclosed), your request for review based on the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the 

election is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

November 19, 1971

Mr. Irving I. Geller 

General Counsel

National Federation of Federal 131

Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: U.S. Army Electronics Command 

Procurement and Production 

Directorate

Case No. 32-2003_____________

Dear Mr. Geller:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking to reverse the decision of the Area Administrator to withdraw approval of the 

consent agreement and to cancel the scheduled election until after a 

hearing on the matters in issue.

I have concluded that the Area Administrator's action in withdrawing 

his approval of the consent election agreement was not arbitrary or capricious but rather was within his discretionary authority. In view of the 

numerous shifts in positions of the parties, especially the petitioner, 

culminating in a serious disagreement among the parties on August 13 as to 

eligibility of a sizeable number of employees, it appears that the parties 

were not in accord as to terms previously agreed upon when the supplement 

to the consent election agreement was executed. Accordingly, while the 

challenged ballot procedure may be used under some circumstances to 'deal 

with eligibility questions, where it becomes apparent that a sizeable 

group of employees may be challenged, it is appropriate that the issues 

involved be developed at a representation hearing. The Area Administrator's action was necessitated by the repeated shifting of positions by 

the parties, which cannot be countenanced in these matters. I have 

enunciated previously this policy in White Sands Missile Range, A/SLMR 

No. 25, which decision permitted the issuance of a notice of hearing 

despite an agreement by the parties on the unit issue. Moreover, it is 

noted that no provision exists in the Regulations for the filing of a 

request for review of an Area Administrator's withdrawal of approval of 

a consent election agreement or of a Regional Administrator’s decision to 

issue a notice of hearing.

-2-

Accordingly, because your request for review may not be considered, 

it is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

166
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

NHV 19 mi

Raymond A. Hinerman, Counsel 

Local 3677, National Association 

of Letter Carriers 

Pinsky, Mahan, Barnes, Watson, 

Cuomo and Hinerman 

320 Penco Road

Weirton, West Virginia 26062

Dear Mr. Hinerman:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

in the above-named case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1) 

and (6) of Executive Order 11491.

132

Re: Post Office Department 

Weirton Post Office 

Weirton, West Virginia 

Case No. 21-2240

From a review of the facts I am in agreement with 

the Regional Administrator, that the evidence fails to 

establish that the Activity's .action in postponing its 

answer to agenda items submitted by Local 3.677, National 

Association of Letter Carriers, on the day of the October 26, 1970, 

labor-management meeting constituted a refusal to bargain in 

violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11491.

The provisions of the National agreement and the long standing 

practice establish that written agenda items were to be submitted 

at least one working day prior to the scheduled meeting. The 

evidence establishes that the Activity answered the agenda 

items on November 10, 1970, which was prior to the next 

quarterly labor-management meeting of January 18, 1971.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the 

complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR

O r p i c c o r t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President, Local 476 

National Federation of Federal 

Employees 

P, 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Ret .Department of the Army

U.S. Army Electronics Command 

Medical Department Activities 

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-1995(R0)__________

Dear Mr. Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's report and findings on objections and challenged ballots 

in the above-captioned matter.

Based upon a full review of the evidence submitted and the positions 

offered by the parties, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal as to the objections was warranted. With respect to.your contentions concerning'the submission of evidence, you were advised by letter 

of June 10, 1971, that the burden of proof, including .the procurement of 

evidence, lies with the objecting party during the Area Administrator's 

investigation. You have presented no evidence in support of any of your 

objections during the investigation or in your request for review. Nor 

have you made any contentions in your request for review that you are in 

possession of or are aware of any evidence relating to your objections 

which the Regional Administrator has not considered. In these circumstances,. I have concluded that your allegations of unequal opportunity to 

campaign and alleged misrepresentations by AFGE were unsupported by evidence and the Regional Administrator acted correctly in dismissing them.

Your assertion that the deadline date for filing objections should 

have been July 30 is erroneous. When served by mail, the date a decision 

is mailed is considered the date of service, and not as you contend, when 

the decision is physically received. In addition, it should be noted 

that under Section 205.1 of the Regulations, "the day of the act, event, 

or default after which the designated period of time begins to run, shall 

not be included." Therefore, in accordance with Sections 202.20(f) and

NOV 2 6 7977

133

167—
205.2 of the Regulations, yoa had 10 days from the date of service and an 

additional three days because service was made by mail, to file a request 

for review. Thus, in the subject case, the 13 day period allowed to file 

a request for review ran from July 17 to July 29.

I also have concluded that the Public Information Act (5 USC 552) 

would not compel the disclosure of the Area Administrator's report because 

it would fall under exemption (b)(5) of the Act which exempts, among other 

things, the disclosure of intra-agency memorandums to the public. The 

American Mail Line case was considered distinguishable on the facts because 

the agency in that case "based its final decision on an inter-office memorandum and gave no other reasons or basis for its action." (Emphasis added) 

In the instant matter, the Regional Administrator has given a detailed 

explanation for each of his conclusions.

With respect to the agreement of all parties to the election prior to 

the tally, to count the mail ballot, and absent any indication that the 

ballot was invalid in any respect except for its late arrival, I have concluded that the Area's representative at the tally had the discretionary 

authority to give effect to the oral agreement and to count the ballot.

As to the challenged ballots, the file reveals that all parties to the 

election had agreed prior to the election that the two employees in question 

were ineligible to vote, all parties challenged these employees at the 

election, and ali’parties retained the position that these two employees 

were ineligible to vote prior to the tally of ballots. Therefore, the 

Compliance Officer was in error where he listed the two ineligible, voters 

as "challenges" on the Tally of Ballots. Rather, these two ballots should 

have been considered invalid and should not have appeared on the Tally of 

Ballots. In the circumstances, your change of position regarding the two 

ballots after the tally was improper.

Accordingly, your request for review regarding the objections is 

denied. Moreover, as I have found herein that there were no challenges, the 

Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate certification of representative issued.

Sincerely,

- 2 -

W, J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c i i o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

NOV 3 0 197}

Mr. Ronald A. Ogden

Area Director of Organization

American Federation of Government a

Employees, APL-CIO A ° ^

5515 Livingston Road 

Oxon Hill, Maryland 20021

Re: U. S. Department of the Army 

U. S. Army Signal Center 

and School 

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey" 

Case No. 32-2004 E.O.

Dear Mr. Ogden:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of Objection 

Number three to the run-off election held in the above named 

case on June 3*, 1971. No consideration was given objections 

one and two because your request did not direct itself to the 

Acting Regional Administrator's findings as to these objections.

Section 202.20 of the Regulations states that the 

objecting party shall bear the burden of proof regarding all 

matters alleged in its objections to conduct affecting the 

results of the election. This requirement was made clear 

in the Area Administrator's letter of June 10, 1971 

acknowledging your objections. My policy regarding the 

burden of proof during the Area Administrator's investigation 

is set forth in Report No. 39, a copy of which is enclosed.

Because you have presented no evidence to support 

your allegation that the Activity had furnished NFFE with 

the unlisted telephone numbers of employees, I find, in 

agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator that 

objection number three has no merit.

168
2-

Accordingly, your request seeking to reverse the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal is denied, and the Regional 

Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate certificate 

of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Use^y, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S . D E PA R TM EN T O F LA BOR

O F F IC E O F T H E ASSIST A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Gordon P. Ramsey 

Attorney at Law

Gadsby and Hannah 1*50

75 Federal Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Re: Charleston Naval Shipyard 

Charleston, South Carolina 

Case No. 40-1926 (RO)

Dear Mr, Ramsey:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of all objections filed by the National 

Association of Government Employees, Local R5-103 (NAGE) to conduct 

affecting the results of the runoff election held among certain employees 

of the Activity on March 18, 1971.

In Objection No. 1, NAGE alleged that the Federal Employees Metal 

Trades Council of Charleston, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO (MTC), was 

guilty of having published a material misrepresentation of a material fact 

at a time which prevented NAGE from making an effective reply.

The investigation reveals that on March 16, 1971, NAGE distributed a 

"News Flash" campaign flyer stating, that the USS Fulton was scheduled to

arrive at the Charleston Naval Shipyard soon, and that the job of tank 

cleaning "has been contracted out to a Private Contractor." A copy of an 

Activity job order regarding the USS Fulton was printed on the back of the 

flyer. Upon discovering that a Charleston Naval Shipyard Job order had been 

made a part of a NAGE election flyer, MTC campaigners became concerned and 

asked for a meeting with the Shipyard Commander, to ascertain whether the use 

of official Naval documents had been authorized. As a result of this request, 

a meeting was held on March 16, 1971 between the Commander and the Executive 

Council of MTC. The MTC representatives were told that the Activity had not 

authorized NAGE to use the Job Order in campaign literature, and further, 

that work on the USS Fulton had not been contracted out. After the meeting, 

the Shipyard Commander issued what purports to be a summation of the matters 

discussed in the meeting in the form of a memorandum to MTC, with a copy to 

NAGE, Also, on this same date, the Shipyard Commander issued another memorandum addressed to NAGE, in which he pointed out that the Job Order reproduced 

on NAGE's flyer had not been obtained through normal official procedures, 

and that he considered its use irregular and questionable, and further, that 

the Activity officially protested NAGE's use of the document without official 

clearance of the Activity.

169
- 2 -

On March 17, 1971 MTC distributed a campaign flyer, in answer to NAGE's 

"News Flash" of March 16, 1971. Titled "Once a Liar," it referred to NAGE's 

flyer, and included a partial reproduction of the Shipyard Commander's 

memorandum which stated that a contract had not been let in regard to. cleaning 

the tanks of the USS Fulton. There is no allegation that the partial reproduction of the Shipyard Commander's memorandum was not accurate. NAGE alleged 

this MTC campaign flyer contained a material misrepresentation concerning the 

letting of the contract, was the result of collusion between the Activity and 

MTC, and left no time for NAGE to.reply.

In.order for a misrepresentation to constitute a sufficient basis for 

setting aside an election, it must be shown that a gross misrepresentation of 

a material fact has been made that could reasonably be expected to affect the 

outcome of the election, at a time when no reply can be made. Based upon 

the facts as set out above, it is concluded that the MTC campaign flyer 

in question did not contain a gross misrepresentation of a material fact 

that would require the setting aside of the runoff election. As no gross 

misrepresentation of a material fact has been found, the question of 

whether or not NAGE had sufficient time in which to reply to MTC's campaign 

flyer is of no relevance. Further, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, it is found the meeting on March 16, 1971 between the Activity and MTC • 

was.not improper, particularly in view of MTC's prior incumbent status and 

the provision in the negotiated agreement providing for consultation prior to 

contracting out of work.

Two additional contentions are raised in the request for review concerning Objection No. 1 that merit attention. One is that the refusal of the 

Regional Administrator to consider as a valid objection, NAGE's allegation, 

first made on May 4, 1971, that the Activity's extension, continuation and 

implementation of the Shipyard-Metal Trades Council agreement (which expired 

in March 1970) through 1970 and through the election campaign, constituted 

exclusive recognition of MTC, and is a sufficient reason for setting aside 

the runoff election to be considered timely this objection would of had 

to be filed by March 25, 1971. As this additional objection was not timely 

filed in accordance with Section 202.20 of the Regulations, it is found the 

refusal of the Regional Administrator to consider this additional objection 

was justified.

The second contention is that the Area Administrator did not make a 

full investigation, of Objection No. 1. This contention is based on information supplied to the Area Administrator by NAGE, which purports to show 

that the Job Order, which was the subject of NAGE's "News Flash" campaign

- 3 -

flyer, had been "cancelled" on April 12, 1,971. In the first place, this 

information, if true, would not dispute the finding of the Regional 

Administrator that MTC had not made a gross misrepresentation of a material 

fact in its "Once a Liar" campaign flyer distributed on March 17, 1971.

This is so because MTC had accurately reproduced a portion of the Commander's 

memorandum of March 16, 1971. The main issue was whether ot nor MTC had 

made a gross misrepresentation of a material fact in its campaign literature, 

adn not whether or not the Activity had in fact let a contract to an outside 

contractor for work to be done on the USS Fulton. Further, in regard toNAGE's allegation that the Area Administrator did not make a complete investigation of Objection No. 1, under Section 202.20(d) of the Regulations, the 

burden of proof regarding all matters alleged in its objections to conduct 

affecting the results of the election lies with the objecting party.

In sum, it is found in agreement with the Regional Administrator that 

the allegations of NAGE in its Objection No. 1 that MTC engaged in improper 

conduct affecting the results of the election are without merit.

NAGE's second objection alleges that the Activity transferred approximately 70 employees from the Charleston Naval Shipyard to the Norfolk Naval 

Shipyard shortly before the runoff election. NAGE further alleges that almost? 

all.of the transferred employees were open and active supporters of NAGE, and 

that'this action of the Activity denied the transferred employees their 

right to vote in the runoff election, and was effected in order to favor 

and assist MTC.

Although NAGE alleged in this objection that the transfer of these 

employees was in direct contradiction of representations made by the 

Activity that no temporary transfers of employees were contemplated prior 

to the election, NAGE acknowledged in its letter of position that there 

was no express agreement that temporary transfers were to be precluded 

before the election.

The Regional Administrator found there was no evidence that the transfers 

were not in accord with Activity needs, or that a disproportionate number 

of the transfereed were NAGE asherents. Moreover, he found that even if 

all 70 transferees were NAGE supporters, and would have voted for NAGE in 

the election, their vote could not have affected the election results.

Because NAGE failed to establish that the transferees were denied the right 

of their franchise solely because they were NAGE supporters or potential 

voters for NAGE, the Regional Administrator found the temporary transfer of 

these employees, during the week of the election did not constitute improper 

conduct, and he found Objection No. 2 did not have merit.

170
- 4 -

As there is no evidence that NAGE adherents were selected out of proportion for transfer, or that the transfers were unnecessary, it is found, 

in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that Objection No. 2 does not 

have merit.

Objection No. 3 concerns a compaign flyer distrinuted by MTC on 

March 17, 1971 with a heading, "nage LIARS BOOTED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN 

CHARLESTON." NAGE objects to the distribution of this flyer on the day 

before the election because. NAGE. did.not have the opportunity "to rebut the 

falsehood and the outright lies" of the campaign flyer.

The Regional Administrator concluded that the MTC flyer in question 

did not contain a misrepresentation of a material fact, and after examination of all the pertinent material relating to this objection in the case 

file, I agree with the conclusion of the Regional Administrator. For 

example, court documents relied upon by MTC in issuing the flyer in question 

indicate that a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for 

the District of South Carolina, Charleston, Division on January 13, 1970 onbehalf of certain employee welders of the Charleston Naval Shipyard.

Allegation XXIV of that complaint states:

THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL AVAILABLE 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIED AFFORDED THEM BY THE 

REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE 

COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

The Court issued an Order in that case on January 23, 1970. The Court 

noted that on January 21, 1970, it had issued a temproary restraining order 

upon the verified complaint which had alleged that all administrative remedies 

had been exhausted. However, on page 2 of the Order, the Court pointed out, 

"At a hearing on said Motion counsel for plaintiffs stated to the court that 

no steps had been taken by any of the plaintiffs to exercise their right of 

appeal to the Civil Service Commission." Because administrative remedies 

had not been invoked by the plaintiffs, the Court ordered that the temporary 

restraining order be dismissed and that a motion for preliminary injunction 

be denied. Based on the foregoing, it is found that MTC did not make a 

gross misrepresentation of a material fact. Rather, it is found that this 

campaign material is of the type that could be evaluated by employees as 

campaign propaganda, and would not constitute grounds fro setting aside the 

runoff election. As to NAGE's complaint that it did not have the opportunity 

to rebut the MTC flyer in question, because no gross misrepresentation o f a 

material fact has been' found, there is no basis for requiring an opportunity 

to reply.

NAGE further contended in regard to Objection No. 3 that the Regional 

Administrator failed to consider that 'MTC1s false claims that NAGE was a 

liar in its Court action in support of Charleston welders was calculated to

- 5 -

aid and assist the flyer, distributed the same day, that NAGE had lied about 

the Shop order." The fact that two alleged misrepresentations were made on the 

same day would not alter the conclusion the neither of the two alleged 

objectionable pieces of campaign literature constituted improper conduct, 

whether considered individually or together.

As it has been found, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

that none of NAGE's objections have merit, your request seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objections is denied and the 

Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have an appropriate certification 

of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary, of. Labor
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr* Irving I* Geller 

General Counsel

National Federation of Federal a or'

Employees X u D

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: United States Information Agency 

Case No. 22-2533

Dear Mr. Geller:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

seeking to reverse the Acting Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the instant National Federation of Federal 

Employees (NFFE) petition and furthermore to revoke the 

Certification of Representative Issued on July 20, 1970 to 

the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) for 

a nationwide unit in Case No. 22-2350.

I note that NFFE in its dismissed petition in 

Case No. 22-2533 was seeking a portion of the nationwide 

unit previously petitioned for by AFGE In Case No. 22-2350.

The posting period for AFGE's nationwide unit ended on 

April 9. Therefore, because no good cause was shown for 

extending the filing period, NFFE's petition under Sections 

202.5(b) and 202.5(c) of the Regulations was untimely filed 

on April 19 and should have been dismissed at that time. 

Additionally noted was the fact that NFFE earlier had filed 

a timely motion to intervene in the nationwide unit petitioned 

for by AFGE in Case No. 22-2350. In these circumstances, I 

consider that the Area Administrator's telegram to the NFFE 

on April 22, giving it the option to join as an intervenor 

in the consent agreement in Case No. 22-2350 or to state in 

writing its reason for not joining in the consent agreement, 

to be fair and reasonable, and in no way coercive. Moreover, 

the NFFE did, in fact, elect to sign the consent agreement 

for the nationwide unit, participate in the election and 

even file objections to that election which were subsequently 

dismissed.

- 2 -

Considering the untimeliness of the NFFE petition 

and noting moreover its full participation as an intervenor 

in the broad nationwide election, I find that the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the NFFE petition In 

Case No. 22-2533 was warranted.

Furthermore, noting that the Acting Regional Administrator served on all parties on July 6, 1971 his corrected 

Report and Findings on Objections in Case No. 22-2350 and that 

NFFE did not file a timely request for review of these findings, 

I find no reason to revoke the Acting Regional Administrator's 

certification of AFGE in that case*

Accordingly, your request seeking to reverse the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition 

and to revoke the AFGE's certification in Case No. 22-2350 

is denied*

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

172
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mrs. Lillian L. Qrogen 

131 Lambert Street

North Charleston, South Carolina 29406

Re: Charleston Naval Shipyard 

Charleston, South Carolina 

Case No. 40-3404 <CA 26)

Dear Mrs, Grogen:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your complaint in the above named case.

A review of the case file reveals that the Regional 

Administrator, in his letter of dismissal of your complaint 

dated September 28, 1971, served on all parties on that date, 

advised you of your right, under Section 203.7(c) of the 

Assistant Secretary's Regulations, to obtain a review of his 

action by filing a request for review with the undersigned to 

be received by me by the close of business October 12, 1971, 

Your request for review dated October 12, 1971, and postmarked 

October 17, 1971, was received on October 19, 1971, and therefore was untimely.

Accordingly, I must deny your request for review 

because of its untimeliness.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c b o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Vincent J. Paterno 

President

Association of Civilian Technicians, Inc.

916 College Parkway 

Rockville* Maryland 20850

Re: New Hampshire Air National Guard 

Pease Air Force Base 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 

Case No. 31-4304 E.O.

Dear Mr, Paterno:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of your request to intervene in the above named case.

It is found in agreement with the Acting Regional 

Administrator, that your request to intervene was untimely 

filed pursuant to Section 202.5(c) of the Regulations.

Whereas your letter of intervention was received on

August 5, 1971 in the Boston Area Office, it should have

been received no later than the close of business on August 2, 1971.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your request to^intervene 

is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

DEC 1 5

Henry E. Bagley, President a

Aaron B. Roberts Chapter v

Act, Inc., 116th Mawg 

t)obbins AFB, Georgia 30060

Re: Air Technician Detachment at 

Dobbins AFB, Georgia and 

Travis Field, Savannah, Georgia 

Case No. 40-3147 (CA)_________

Dear Mr. Bagley:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the abovenamed case alleging a violation of Section 19(a)(6) of Executive 

Order 11491 and conclude that the issues raised by the complaint 

can be resolved best on the basis of record testimony. Thus, the 

Activity's alleged refusal to discuss a grievance with its 

employees1 exclusive bargaining representative pertaining to the 

wearing of uniforms and its unilateral institution' of a policy with 

respect to this subject are considered to raise a reasonable basis 

for the complaint herein which warrants the issuance of a notice of 

hearing.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is bei-ng directed to 

reinstate the dismissed complaint and to issue promptly a notice of 

hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f 't h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Glen J. Peterson 

Area Director of Organization 

American Federation of Government 

Employees 

St. Louis Area Office 

P. 0. Box 5699 

St. Louis, Missouri 63121

Re: Sandia Area Exchange

Kirtland Air Force Base 

Case No. 63-2614 (CU)

Dear Mr. Peterson:

I have considered carefully your request for review dated July 

19, 1971, of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the 

petition filed by Local 2346, American Federation of Government 

Employees (AFGE) in the above-named case, based on his determination 

that proceeding on the CU petition would not provide the employees of. 

the Kirtland Air Force Base with the opportunity of expressing their 

desires regarding the question of union representation of their group.

In your Request for Review you contend that the employees at 

Kirtland Air Force Base should be added to the existing Sandia Base 

unit without an election because the two bases have been combined into 

a single installation, and also because the AFGE local representing the 

Sandia group and the AFGE local seeking to represent the Kirtland group 

now have been combined as a single local.

After consideration of these contention and the submitted facts 

in support of these contentions, I am of the opinion that the evidence 

is insufficient to establish that an integration of the two groups of 

employees has accurred so as to cause the employees in the Kirtland Air 

Force Base group to lose their identity as a single unit.

Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the employees 

at Kirtland Air Force Base are entitled to an opportunity of expressing 

their desires regarding the question of union representation of their 

group. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Kirtland Air Force Base

d e c 1 P I S n 

140

174
- 2 -

was in existence and its employees unrepresented at the time recognition 

was sought and granted for the Sandia Base, I find that a petition for 

exclusive recognition seeking to add the employees to the existing exclusive unit rather than a petition for unit clarification is the 

appropriate vehicle to use in this situation. Accordingly, your request 

that the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition in the 

above-named case be reversed is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

DEC 2 8 1971

Mr. N. T. Wolkomir

President „ , 1 4 1

National Federation of Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of the Army 

Military Ocean Terminal 

Case No. 32-1704

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

Your telegraphic requests of December 16 and 23, 1971 ' 

to withdraw the request for review of the Regional Administrator's 

decision of December 3, 1971 in the above named case have been 

received and considered.

Your request to withdraw, made on behalf of NFFE 

Local 1550 and national headquarters, is hereby granted and the 

case is being returned to the Regional Administrator for 

appropriate action.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S>’DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

J A N 1 4 1972

Mr. Roger P. Kaplan 

General' Counsel

National Association of Government 1 4 2

Employees 

1341 G Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-2603

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

Th^ undersigned has considered carefully your request 

for review of the Acting Regional Administrator’s denial of 

your request to consolidate the above-named case with 

Case Nos. 41-2427 (CO 26), 41^2426 (CA 26)., 42-1672 (CA 26) 

and 42-1673 (CO 26).

Under all the circumstances, including the fact that 

four days of hearing have already been held in the above-named 

representation case, and because there are different procedural 

and evidentiary requirements applicable to representation and 

unfair'labor practice cases, it was concluded that consolidation 

of the unfair labor practice cases with the representation case 

would be inappropriate.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Acting 

Regional. Administrator's refusal to consolidate is denied.

Sincer6ly,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U-.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r v

W A S H IN G T O N

idm 1.4 1972

,Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President, Local 476

National Federation of Federal 1 4 ^

Employees 

P. O. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Ro: DCA Field Office

Ft, Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2457 (25) E.O.

Dear Mr, Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition seeking 

certification as exclusive representative of a unit consisting 

of a single employee.

Section 10 of Executive Order 11491, which deals 

with exclusive recognition,, refers, throughout to units of 

"employees" and all other references to units in the Order, 

and in the regulations implementing the Order, are couched in 

plural terras, I find that a unit consisting of a single 

employee is not an appropriate unit for purposes of collective 

bargaining within the meaning of Executive Order 11491, as 

amended.

Accordingly, your request to reverse the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of your petition is denied.

Sincerely,

V/, J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

176
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O F F I C E O F T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y .

W A S H I N G T O N

JAN 14 19^2

Mr. William H, Layman 

Grand Lodge Representative

Federal Employees Metal Trades a a m

Council A 4*4*

AFL-CIO Hall, P. 0. Box 125 

Kittery, Maine 03904

Re: U.S. Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth,

New Hampshire 

Case No. 31-5458

Dear Mr, Layman:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

alleging violations of Executive Order 11491, Section 19(a)

(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6).

I agree with the Regional Administrator that your 

complaint was untimely filed. The original forin which you 

submitted to the Area Office on July 30, 1971 did not 

constitute a valid complaint, because it was not signed as 

required by Section 203.3(f) of the Regulations. Therefore, . 

the date of filing of your complaint was September 8, 1971, 

when for the first time you signed the complaint form and 

handed it to an Area Office representative.

Under Section 203.2 of the Regulations, a complaint 

of unfair labor practices must be filed within 30 days of 

receipt by the charging party of tho final decision. Since 

the final decision in this case was given by the Activity in 

a letter dated July 19, 1971, it is clear that your complaint 

was filed more than thirty days after receipt of the letter.

The complaint was therefore untimely.

I note further that the original form submitted by 

you was not a valid complaint in that it did not contain a 

clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the 

alleged unfair labor practice, which is required by Section 

203.3(c). The statement on the form originally submitted,

"see attached correspondence" did not satisfy this requirement.

- 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W, J, Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

177

I
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y • f t

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 %

U.S." DEPARTMENT OF LABOR .r

"JAN 18 1972

Mr. Donald W. Jones 

President

American Federation of Government

Employees 145

Social Security Local No.- 1395 

165 North Canal Strefet 

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Re: Social Security Administration 

Chicago Payment Center 

Case No. 50-5557 (26)

Dear Mr. Jones:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint filed in the above 

named case.

I agree with the Regional Administrator that the complaint was 

filed untimely. It is true, as you contend, that the letter containing 

the final decision of the agency was directed to the -President of the 

National Council of Social Security Payment Center Locals American 

Federation of Government Employees, rather than to yourself. However, 

a copy of that letter was forwarded to you and.you admit receiving 

it on May 27, 1971.

Because you thus received the final decision on that date, 

the complaint, in order to have been timely, should have been filed 

no later than June 26, 1971 in accordance with Section 203.2 of the 

Regulations. The complaint actually was filed on August 24, 1971.

It was therefore untimely.

Accordingly your request seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTM ENT O F LABOR

O F F I C E O F T H K A S 8 I B T A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Ronald D. King 

National Representative 

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

206 Richmond Avenue 

Batavia, New York 14020

Re: Veterans Administration Center 

Bath, New York 

Case No.:35-1796

Dear Mr. King:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of your petition for election in the instant 

case.

I have concluded, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

copies of the petition were not served simultaneously upon all interested 

parties as required by Section 202.2(e)(3) of the Regulations.

The evidence reveals that the AFGE, stated in its letter which 

accompanied the petition that a copy had been mailed to the National 

Federation of Federal Employee^ (NFFE), exclusive representative of the 

employees here involved. In fact, however, such copy was not served 

on the NFFE until at least a week after filing of the petition. The 

difficulty of ascertaining the private address of the NFFE representative, 

as claimed by the Petitioner, does not warrant waiving of the requirements 

of Section 202.2(e)(3).

Accordingly, in view of the AFGE's failure to serve copies of its 

representation petition simultaneously on all interested parties, your 

request for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

decision to dismiss the petition is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

IAN 1 9 1972

146

178
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

jinm w*

Miss Sandra E. Bentley

Assistant Director

Economic Security Program 4 A H

New York State Nurses Association A** r

11 West 42nd Street

New York; New York 10036

Re: Veterans Administration Center

Bath, New York

Case No, 35-1810

Dear Miss Bentley:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional

Administrator's dismissal of the New York State Nurses Association's

(NYSNA) petition in the .above-named case.

I find, as did the Regional Administrator, but for different

reasons, that the petition was filed untimely. Prior to. the filing of

the N Y SNA1s petition in this case, the American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO, filed two different petitions for bargaining units,

both of which include the employees sought by NYSNA, The first (Case No,

22-2635), dated June 25, 1971, seeks a unit of all eligible Veterans

Administration employees on a nationwide basis. The second (Case No. 35-

1796), dated August 6, 1971, seeks an activity-wide unit at the Bath. VA

facility. With respect to the NYSNA*s petition of August 30, 1971, I

conclude that it was filed untimely pursuant to Section 202.5(b) of the

Regulations, For compliance with the requirements of Section 202.5(b)

of the Regulations, the NYSNA should have filed its petition during the

initial ten days of the posting period, (July 26 to August 5, 1971)

because the unit it sought was a segment of the AFGE nationwide unis for

which a notice had been posted.

Accordingly, your request to reverse the Regional Administrator's

dismissal action must be denied.

Sincerely,

W. J u Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

January 19, 1972

Mr. Dennis Garrison 

National Vice President 

Fifth District 

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO 14ft

West Clinton Building, Room 314 

2109 Clinton Avenue, West 

Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Re: Department of the Air Force

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 

Case No. 42-1468(CA)__________

Dear Mr. Garrison:

I have received your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint in the above-named 

case.

The Regional Administrator, in his letter of July 26, 1971, 

advised you of your right, under Section 203.7(c) of the Regulations, 

to obtain a review of his action by filing a request for review with 

the undersigned. He further advised that the request must be received 

by me in Washington, D. C. by the close of business August 9, 1971.

On August 3, 1971, Mr. J. L. Neustadt, Staff Counsel of AFGE, asked 

for an extension of time in which to file a request for review and I 

extended the filing period until the close of business August 20, 1971.

Your request for review, dated August 20, 1971, was mailed 

at Huntsville, Alabama, and postmarked August 20, 1971, the date it 

was required to be received in Washington. It arrived in my office 

on August 23, 1971.

Accordingly, your request for review, which is procedurally 

defective, cannot be considered on its merits.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Nathan T. WoLkomir 

President

National Federation of Federal 

Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C# 20006

Re: U. S, Army Corps of Engineers 

Little Rock District 

Pine Bluff Resident Office 

Pine Bluff, Arkansas 

Case No. 64-1318 (CA)_______

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator’3 dismissal of your complaint alleging multiple 

violations of Executive Order 11491, Sections 19(a)(1) and (2).

I agree with the Acting Regional Administrator that your complaint 

was defective in that it did not contain essential, basic information 

required by Section ,2,03.3(c) of the Regulations. This Section states 

that a complaint shall contain "A clear and concise statement of the facts 

constituting the alleged unfair labor practice, including the time and 

place of occurrence of the particular acts....*' All of the allegations 

contained in your complaint, save one, failed to state times of occurrence. 

This information wan necessary to determine whether your complaint was 

timely.

Moreover, I note your subsequent lack of cooperation in supplying 

this information even after having been requested to do so. On three 

separate occasions during the processing of this case you were requested 

to furnish such information; by the Area Administrator on February 8 and 

June 23, 1971, and then by the Acting Regional Administrator on August 4,

1971. Your only response to the requests was on March 12, 1971, to the 

February 8th query. With your letter you enclosed statements supporting 

your complaint from two Local 1679 members. Only one of the incidents 

related in these statements bore a date, that of June 5, 1970. This particular incident could not be considered, since it occurred more than six 

months prior to filing of the unfair labor practice charge with the Agency 

on December 10, 1970.

JA N 2 0 1972

149

- 2 -

lvi Brockton, Massachuse-tts VA Hospital, A/SLMR No. 21, I enunciated 

the policy that it would best effectuate the purposes of the Executive 

Order and would promote the prompt handling of cases to dismiss where a 

petitioner refused to cooperate in the processing of his petition. This 

policy applies equally well to a similar lack of cooperation by a complainant in an unfair labor practice case such as this.

I note that although you had adequate opportunity to furnish the requested times of occurrence prior to the issuance of the Acting Regional 

administrator s dismissal, you chose to submit this necessary information 

for the first time in your request for review. I will not consider evidence 

furnished for the first time in a request for review where a complainant 

has had adequate opportunity to furnish such information during the investigation period, provided for in Section 203.5 of the Regulations, and prior 

to the issuance of the Regional Administrator's decision.. This is consistent 

with my decision in Charleston, South Carolina VA Hospital, A/SLMR No. 37, 

wherein I stated thatx "The establishment of time limitations for such procedural .contentions /i.e., no pre-complaint charges being filed/ is necessary 

for the orderly processing of unfair labor practice complaints. Where, as 

here, the Respondent had an adequate opportunity to raise such issue prior to 

the hearing, I find that it would not effectuate the purposes of the Order 

to permit this matter to be raised, for the first time, either during hearing 

or in a post-hearing brief."

I note further that in response to the Acting Regional Administrator's 

August 4th letter again seeking information as to dates of the alleged 

unfair labor practices you replied in a letter accusing him of promanagement bias. I have examined the circumstances surrounding this case 

and am unable to find any basis in fact for this accusation.

In the request for review, you ask that the case be returned to the 

Area Administrator for a thorough investigation of the charges. This request 

must be denied. The burden of proof, including the submission of evidence, 

always remains with the complainant. In this connection see Section 203.14 

of the Regulations and also my Report on Ruling No. 24, a copy of which is 

enclosed.

Because of the lack of necessary dates in the complaint and your subsequent failure to furnish this information to the Area and Regional offices, 

none of the allegations in the complaint can be considered except for the 

single- incident for which you supplied the approximate date of August 1970.

In respect to this incident, having to do with the work assignment given to 

Mr. Riggan, President of Local 1679, in August 1970, I am in agreement vath 

the Acting Regional Administrator‘s disrrdsoal thereof on the ground thsL 

the evidence submitted at that time does not support the allegation of .r.'tiunion bias on the part of the Activity.

180
- 3 -

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the Actin

ional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

V?. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S. DEPARTMENT Or LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Stanley Q, Lyman 

National Vice-President

Federal Aviation Science and 1 5 0

Technological Association 

■1341 G Street, N, W.

Y/ashington, D. C. 20005

•Re: FAA, Miami Air Route Traffic 

Control Center 

Case No. 42-1548 (RO 25)

FAA., Miami Air Route Traffic 

Control Tower 

Case No.. 42-1759

Dear Mr. Lyman:

Your request for review o£ a ruling toy the Acting 

Regional Administrator has been leccived.

The ruling which you seek to have reviewed is the 

denial of your motion to dismiss petitions filed in the.above 

named cases by Professional Air Traffic. Controllers Organization.

Section 202.3(d) of the Regulations makes no provision 

for the filing of a:request for review of a Regional Administrator's action in denying a motion to dismiss a petition..

See Report Number 8, a copy of which is enclosed.

Accordingly, your request for review will not beconsidered.

Sincerely,

J, Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

J A N 2 6 1972

Mr, Clair D, Olsen 

1048 Kingswood Road 

Keysville, Utah 84037

151

Re; U. S. Air Force

Hill Air Force Base

Ogden, Utah

Case No. 61-1366 (CA)

Dear Mr. Olsen:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the above-named 

case alleging a violation of Section 19(a)(4) of Executive Order 11491.

In agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, I find that 

Section 19(a)(4) of the Executive Order does not apply in these circumstances. As stated in the Executive Order, this Section applies to 

complaints filed or testimony given under the Order. It does not apply 

to intra-agency grievances filed pursuant to the agency's grievance procedures. In this case, the discrimination which you allege to have 

occurred as a result of the intra-agency proceeding, took place prior to 

your filing of the complaint under the Executive Order and therefore 

could not have been caused by such filing.

Furthermore, in agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, 

and as contended by the Activity, I find that the alleged violations are 

subject to an established grievance and appeal procedure which, under 

Section 19(d) of the Order is the exclusive procedure for resolving the 

complaint. See Report No. 25, a copy of which is attached. Therefore, 

these matters are not properly before me. Moreover, I find the Activity's 

consideration of only those events alleged in the December 11, 1971 

grievance which had occurred within the 6 months preceding the filing date 

of the grievance to be a fair and reasonable position.

In your request for review you have questioned the failure of the 

Acting Regional Administrator to address himself to the second portion of 

your complaint; that the Activity failed to respond to your charge filed 

on February 11, 1971. Under the Assistant Secretary's Regulations (a 

copy of which is attached), when the Respondent fails to respond to an

unfair labor practice charge, the Complainant has the recourse to file a 

complaint on that charge at the end of 30 days, which you in fact did on 

May 3, 1971.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the dismissal 

of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

- 2 -

W, J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

182
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Frederick D. Hogan 

President, Local 912

National Alliance of Postal 152

and Federal Employees 

4627 Moraine Avenue 

St. Louis, Missouri 63115

Re: U. S. Post Office

St. Louis, Missouri 

Case No. 62-2414 (CA)

Dear Mr. Hogan:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the 

above-named case.

The complaint, filed June 2, 1971, al.leges violations of Sections 19

(a)(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of Executive Order 11491. The entire complaint was dismissed by the Acting Regional Administrator and I concur 

with his findings.

The National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees did not have 

exclusive recognition at the St. Louis Post Office at the time the alleged 

violations occurred. Therefore, Sections 19(a)(5) and (6) do not apply to 

any of three incidents referred to in the attachments to the complaint.

Nor does it appear that the alleged discrimination occurred because yon had 

filed a complaint or given testimony under the Order, thus also removing 

Section 19(a)(4) from consideration. The complaint was filed by you subsequent to the three incidents referred to.

In respect to the incident in which you were sent a letter of warning 

for having left your work station and allegedly having disturbed a fellow 

employee, there is a lack of proof that the disciplinary action taken 

against you was for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership, 

in a labor organization. Thus, no violation of Section 19(a)(2) can be 

found.

- 2 -

In regard to the section of the complaint relating to the representation of Mr. Bennett in an adverse action proceeding, I find, in agreement 

with the Acting Regional Administrator, that the complaint was filed untimely. 

Under Section 203.2 of the Regulations, thirty days must elapse after filing 

a charge with the Agency before a complaint may be filed unless a final 

decision has been rendered by the Agency, which was not the case here. The 

charge was filed with the Post Office on May 19, 1971 and the complaint was 

filed on June 2, 1971, less than thirty days thereafter. For this reason 

the complaint, in respect to this incident, was prematurely filed.

In respect to the allegation in the complaint that your nonselection 

for the position of Postal Source Data Technician was a violation of the: 

Executive Order, there is no showing that this action was taken to encourage 

or discourage membership in a labor organization. Nor was there any evidence 

that it was done for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, or coercing 

you in the exercise of your rights under the Executive Order. In agreement 

with the Acting Regional Administrator, I find that the selection of qualified 

individuals is a function of management and, absent any specific proof that 

the selection process abrogated a right assured by the Executive Order or encouraged or discouraged membership in a labor organization, I am. unable to find 

any violation of the Order.

In your request for review, you ask that a hearing be conducted so that 

you will have an opportunity to prove your case. You imply that the investigation of the complaint was one-sided, .in that witnesses to support your case 

were not interviewed by Area Office representatives.

Under the Executive Order, the investigation of complaints by Area 

Administrators is confined, except in unusual circumstances, to a careful 

consideration of information and materials submitted by the parties. The 

burden of proving the allegations of the complaint is the responsibility of 

the party filing the complaint. See my Report on Ruling No. 24, a copy of 

which is enclosed herewith.

In respect to your request for a hearing, I am unable to find sufficient 

evidence of violations.of the Order in this case to justify the issuance of 

a Notice of Hearing.

In view of the above, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

183
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

January 26, 1972

Mr. Michael Wheeler

Vice President, National Alliance

Of Postal & Federal Employees 153

Local 912 

4121 West Kossuth 

St. Louis, Missouri 63115

#Re: U. S. Postal Service

St. Louis Postal Service 

St. Louis, Missouri 

Case No. 62-2664 (CA)

Dear Mr. Wheeler:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint in the 

above named case.

Your request for review contains a charge that you were 

given misleading instructions in the St. Louis Area Office on the 

procedures to be used in filing a complaint. The case file reveals 

that you and a member of your labor organization spent several 

hours on or about July 23, 1971 in the St. Louis Area Office discussing the possibility of filing an unfair labor practice complaint 

against the St. Louis Postal Service. During such an extended discussion, I can see both the possibility of erroneous information 

being given and the possibility of the giving of correct information which was not clearly understood.

The Regulations of the Assistant Secretary set out 

the correct procedures for a labor organization to follow in 

filing a complaint, and serve as an authoritative guide to the 

public in such matters. I understand that you were furnished 

a copy of the Regulations during your visit to the St. Louis 

Area Office and that the language of Section 203.2 which relates 

to the timeliness of complaints was read and explained to you.

In these circumstances, the requirements of the 

Regulations are clear and must be followed. Accordingly, 

your complaint was not filed timely pursuant to Section 203.2 

of the Regulations, in that it was filed more than thirty days

- 2 -

after you received the final decision of the Post Office on 

the matter.

Accordingly, your request seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint must be 

denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

184
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O p f i c c o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

J A N 2 6 1972

Mr. Raymond J, Malloy 

Associate Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government A t:A

Employees (AFL-CIO)

400 First Street, N. W,

Washington* D, C. 20001

Re: United States Army.

Ryukyu Islands 

Case No* 22-2398 (CU)

Dear Mr*. Malloy:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the CU petition 

filed by Local 1678, American Federation of Government Employees 

(AFGE) in the above-named case, based on his determination that 

the unit for which Local 1678 is seeking clarification is 

inappropriate under Executive Order 11491, and that the petition 

therefore, is also inappropriate*

In your request for review you contend that the unit 

for which Local 1678 is seeking clarification is primarily a 

non-supervisory unit and that the Assistant Secretary, therefore, 

should make a determination as to which employees are supervisors 

and as such would be excluded from the unit0 You contend 

further that the question of whether employees who supervise 

only foreign nationals are supervisors within the meaning of 

the Executive Order constitutes a major policy issue which 

requires a hearing to establish a full record upon which I can 

make a final determination,

I am in agreement with the Regional Administrator that 

your petition was dismissed properly. The facts reveal that the 

existing unit is a supervisory unit which in accordance with 

Section 24(d) ceased to exist as an exclusive recognized unit 

as of December 31, 1970. It further appears from the petition 

that: your organization is attempting to convert the former 

unit to a non-supervisory unit, which would be expanded to 

include all presently unrepresented non-supervisory employees 

on the Islands* In view of these circumstances, including the

issue of the supervision of foreign nationals, it is my opinion 

that an R0 petition would be the appropriate vehicle to resolve 

the issues here present*

In these circumstances, your request for reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the CU petition is denied*

Sincerely,

- 2 -

W; J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

185
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

JAN 2 6 19(72

Mr. Forest B, Wooten 

PraHldtmt., I*ooal 2022

American Federation oi Government a rtr

Employees 

P. O. Box 3

Fort Campbell, Kentucky 42223

Re: Department of the Army 

Headquarters 

Fort Campbell, Kentucky 

Case No. 41-2386 (CA 26)

Dear Mr* Wooten: ,

I have considered carefully your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your complaint. It is found for the reasons outlined below, ’ 

that the complaint against the. Department of the Army, Fort 

Campbell, Kentucky, should be dismissed.

Section 203.2 of the Regulations requires that a 

thirty-day period following the filing of a charge be set 

aside for the parties to meet informally in an attempt to 

resolve the issues raised by the charge. The date of filing 

has been determined to be the date on which the Respondent 

receives the charge. To be considered timely, the. complaint 

should have been filed no sooner than July 8, 1971, the thirtyfirst day following the filing of the charge. In this case, 

the charge was filed on June 7, 1971, and the complaint dated 

July 2, was received by the Department on July 6, 1971, which 

was premature.

Section 203,2 also requires a charge to be filed within 

six months of the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practice. 

The basis of the charge in this case was the issuance of a 

memorandum on April 28, 1970, instituting the 75 percent/25 

percent schedule, allocating the time you were permitted to 

devote to your regular work and to union matters. The charge 

filed on June 7, 1971 was clearly outside the six month time' 

limit and untimely for this additional reason.

- 2 -

Furthermore, the issues presented by the charge and 

complaint had gone through the prescribed grievance and arbitration 

procedures* Since both parties mutually agreed to arbitration in 

accordance with the contract, the Activity did not violate 

Section 19(a)(6) of the Executive Order by refusing to consult, 

confer, or negotiate with a labor organization.

Accordingly, and absent any evidence of other violations, 

your request for a reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of your complaint Is denied.

Sincerely,

w, J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

186
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O F F I C E O F T H E A S S IS T A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A SH IN G T O N

Mr. Rex H. Reed 

Associate General Counsel 

Labor Relations

Department of the Army and Air Force 4 C C

Headquarters, Army and Air Force 

Exchange Service 

Dallas, Texas 75222

Re: Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

MacDill Consolidated Exchange 

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida 

Case No. 42-1169 (RO 25)

Dear Mr. Reed;

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the 

election held in the above named case. It is concluded that the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objections was warranted.

Your first objection is that the American Federation 

of Government Employees (AFGE) made statements to the effect 

that employees would receive various benefits if the AFGE won 

the election. 1 find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator that the statements referred to were clearly recognizable 

as campaign propaganda and reasonably could not be expected to 

have an improper impact upon the election.

In regard to the second objection, in which you allege 

that the AFGE engaged in misrepresentation of a material fact in 

respect to the transfer of a store manager, I am unable to find 

that such misrepresentation actually occurred. In any event,

I agree with the Regional Administrator that there was not gross 

misrepresentation such as to warrant setting aside the election. 

Contrary to the assertion in your request for review this finding 

does not constitute an’endorsement by the Department of Labor of 

unicn misrepresentations," but merely recognizes the realities 

of election campaigning.

Under all the circumstances, I find no basis for granting 

your request for a hearing on the objections. Accordingly, the 

request for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator’s 

dismissal of the objections is denied.

Sincerely,

W, J, Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT O F LABOR

O F F I C E O F T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A S H IN G T O N

William B, Peer, Esq.

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman,

Cohen and Peer 

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W,

Washington, D. C, 20036

Re; Federal Aviation Administration 

Case Nos. 22-2000, 2001, 2019, 

2024, 2030, 2033 and 2044_____

Dear Mr, Peer:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissals of the complaints filed in the 

above-numbered cases alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of 

Executive Order 11491.

The evidence revealed that in all of the above cases, with the exception of the case involving Complainant Sommer (Case No. 22-2000), the 

alleged unfair labor practices regarding denial of leave and constructive 

discharge occurred prior to the effective date of the Executive Order, 

January 1, 1970, and therefore any charges pertaining thereto are not 

within my jurisdiction, (in this connection, see Section 203,2 of the 

Regulations.)

Regarding the Sommer case, although his alleged constructive discharge occurred after January 1, 1970, the complainant did not file a 

charge with the Activity within six months from the date of the alleged 

unfair labor practice as required by Section 203.2 of the Regulations and 

therefore was untimely.

With respect to your additional allegation that the Agency's refusal 

to rehire complainants violated the Executive Order, this contention was 

not alleged in either the charges or complaints filed in these cases, and 

therefore, as required by Section 203,2 of the Regulations, cannot be 

considered.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

dismissals of the complaints is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

jUN 3.1^72.

157

187
JA N 3-119 72

William B. Peer, Esq.

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, 1 5 8

Cohen and Peer 

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Case No. 22-2141______________

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Owwkm ort h e a s s i s t a n t S c c r c t a r y

WASHINGTON

Dear Mr. Peer:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint filed in 

the above-numbered case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and

(2) of Executive Order 11491.

The evidence fails to establish that the Agency refused to rehire 

James E, Hays because of unlawful considerations. Particularly noted 

in this regard was the fact that Mr. Hays held the position of 

President of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization and 

was functioning actively in such position at the time that Organization 

called or condoned an illegal work stoppage of Air Traffic Controllers 

(See A/SLMR Ho. 10).

Moreover, I am of the opinion that, as distinguished from my 

Report No. 35 referred to in your request for review, the facts do not 

present a novel issue warranting a hearing.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

J A N 3.1 1972

Mr* Dolph David Sand 

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 159

Employees 

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C« 20001

.Re: U, S, Army Training Center

Ft, Jackson Laundry Facility 

Ft, Jackson, South Carolina 

Case No. 40-3491 <CA)

Dear Mr. Sand:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint 

filed in the above named case.

Your contention that American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1909, should have been allowed an 

additional three days to file its complaint under Section 205.2 

of the Regulations is misplaced. Section 205,2 is meant to 

cover service requirements and specifically mentions "after 

service of a notice or paper,” (Emphasis added).

The applicable portion of the Regulations with 

respect to this case- is Section 203,2 which requires, in 

pertinent part, that a complaint, in order to be timely, must 

be filed "within thirty (30) days of the receipt by the charging 

party of the final decision," (Emphasis added). The final 

decision was received by the Complainant on October 4, 1971,

A timely complaint under Section 203.2 must have been filed on 

or before November 3, 1971. The complaint was not filed until 

November 4, 1971, and was therefore untimely.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is 

denied.

Sincerely,

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

W, J, Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

188
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

I).Si* 'DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

JA N 3 1 7972

Mr. Neal H. Fine

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 160

Employees 

400 First Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: Department of the Air Force 

U. S. Air Force Academy

Case No. 22-2694 (CA)

Dear Mr. Fine:

I have considered carefully your Request for Review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint filed in 

the above navied case*

The file in this case reveals that the American Federation 

of Government EmpLoyees (AFGE) has. in part, alleged that the 

Department of the Air Force has violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of the Executive Order by undue delays in approving a memorandum 

of agreement signed between AFGE and the United States Air Force 

Academy. I find that the case file does not contain a full 

investigation of these allegations, and does not reflect the 

position of the Department of the Air Force concerning them.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Regional 

Administrator for the purposes of reinstating the complaint, 

causing additional investigation to be made regarding the above 

allegations, and taking appropriate action as set forth in 

Section 203.6 of the Regulations.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT O F LABOR

O F F I C E O F T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Stanley Q. Lyman 

National Vice President 

Federal Aviation Science and 

Technological Association 

1341 G Street, N.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re; Federal Aviiation Administration 

Aeronautical Center 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

Case No. 63-2948 (CA)

Dear Mr. Lyman:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

alleging that the Activity violated Section 19(a)(1), (2) and

(3) of the Executive Order.

Apart from other considerations, including the settlement of the allegation in regard to the use of Activity facilities 

and the absence in the formal complaint of a Section 19(a)(6) 

allegation, it was concluded that, under all the circumstances, 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

was warranted. In this respect, I find that your allegation 

regarding the number of stewards which the Activity is required 

to recognize under the collective bargaining agreement essentially 

reflects a disagreement over the interpretation of the existing 

agreement, and that the agreement provides a procedure for 

resolving such disputes. In view of the above, I do not believe 

that the purposes of the Executive Order would be served by my 

deciding the proper interpretation to be given to the language 

in your agreement.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

':JAN 3 J 1972 

161

W, J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

'JA N 3.1 1972

Mr. Patrick E* Zembower

American Nurses Association 'ifcO

476 Executive Building J-°^

1030 15th Street, N. W.

Washington, D* C, 20005

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Brecksville, Ohio 

Case No* 53-4156

Dear’Mr. Zembower:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your RO 

petition because of supervisory participation in gathering 

signatures for the supporting showing of interest*

The showing of interest of American Nurses Association 

(ANA) was challenged by American Federation of Government 

Employees which alleged that there was supervisory participation 

in solicitation of signatures for ANA on April 22, 1971*

The investigative file indicates•that a supervisor 

did obtain the signatures of three or four nurses during 

coffee breaks at the Seventh Annual Clinical Nursing Conference 

on April 22, 1971* In agreement with the Acting Regional 

Administrator, I find that the supervisor's activities did 

impair ANA's showing of interest. Section 10(b)(1) of 

Executive Order 11491 specifies that management officials 

and supervisors shall not be included in units of exclusive 

recognition with rank-and-file employees. Supervisors shall 

not act as representatives of a labor organization as provided 

by Section 1(b) of the Order* Furthermore, in accordance with 

Section 19(a)(3), management (of which supervisors are a part) 

shall not sponsor, control, or otherwise assist a labor organization*

It is ray opinion that a showing of Interest in support 

of a petition for an election is Invalid to the extent it is 

obtained at and after the point in time when supervisors or 

management officials participate in the securing of the showing*

- 2 -

Accordingly, since ANA did not have an adequate 

showing of interest on April 22, 1971, the date on which the 

supervisory participation occurred, your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your petition is denied*

Sincerely,

w* J# Usery, Jr* 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

190
O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a & y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

F E B 28 1972

Mr. Stephen K. Smith 

Field Representative

National Council of Bureau of •IC'l

Indian Affairs Educators AOt)

Box 535

Many Farms, Arizona 86503

Re: BIA Education Employees 

NCBIAE - NEA 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Case No. 63-2691 (RO)

Dear Mr. Smith:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your RO petition and have 

decided that the reinstatement of your petition is warranted.

It appears that the Regional Administrator considered that 

your letter of August 7, 1971, in effect rescinded the understanding that the subject case would be held in abeyance pending the 

issuance of a decision by the Assistant Secretary in a related case.

I recognize the Regional Administrator's right to dismiss petitions 

in cases where it is found that a petitioner has engaged in dilatory 

tactics resulting in'unnecessary delay in the processing of its 

petition. However, in the instant case it does not appear that you 

were advised clearly that your petition would be dismissed unless 

you promptly withdrew or amended it as suggested in the Area Administrator's letter of August 17, 1971.

In these circumstances, I conclude that the petition in the 

subject case should be reinstated for further processing. Accordingly, 

the request for reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

the petition is granted and the Regional Administrator is directed to 

reinstate and process the petition.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery t Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. John Dettmering 

Secretary, Branch 3811 

National Association of 

Carriers, AFL-CIO 

914 Hillside Drive 

Bettendorf, Iowa 52722

Ret U. S. Post Office 

Bettendorf, Iowa 

Case No. 62-2447 (CA)

Dear Mr. Dettmering:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging 

violation of Section 19(a)(6) of Executive Order 11491 in the 

above-named case.

Uqder Section 203.2 of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations, a complaint of unfair labor practices must be 

filed within 30 days of receipt by the charging party of the 

Respondent's final decision. Since the final decision in this 

case was given by the Activity in a letter dated April 30, 1971, 

and your complaint was filed June 14, 1971, it is clear that 

your complaint was filed more than thirty days after receipt 

of the letter. Your second letter to the Activity dated 

May 11, 1971, anc1- Its reply dated May 24, 1971 do not change 

this conclusion Inasmuch as these letters merely reiterate 

your initial position and the Activity's previous rejection 

of the charge. Therefore your complaint was filed untimely.

Inasmuch as the complaint was filed untimely, I find 

It unnecessary to deal with the merits of the complaint. In 

addition, no consideration has been given to the allegations of 

violations of Section 19(a)(4) contained in your request for 

review, since no charge alleging such violations was filed with 

the Activity as required by Section 203.2 of the Regulations.

In view of the foregoing, your request to reverse 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal action must be denied.

Sincerely,

W, J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

r E B 2 8 7972

Letter ^

191
U .S. DEPARTMENT O F LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t Gc c k z t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

FEB 29 1972

Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President

National Federation of Federal 165

Employees, Local 476 

P. 0, Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Army Aviation Detachment 

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2468

Dear Mr. Cahn:.

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your challenge 

to the validity of the American Federation of Government Employees 

AFL-CIO, Local 1904 (AFGE) showing of Interest in the above cited 

case.

I am unable to consider your request for review because 

the Regulations make no provision for filing of a request for review 

of a Regional Administrator's action In dismissing a challenge to 

the validity of a showing of interest. See Report No. 21, a copy 

of which is attached. Moreover, I note that your challenge wa£ 

filed untimely.

In respect to your contention that the time limits set 

forth in the Regulations should not be observed In situations 

involving fraud, I note that neither your original challenge nor 

your request for review cited any evidence of fraud. Your 

December 22, 1971 letter to the Area Administrator challenging the 

showing of interest suggests that AFGE obtained its authorization 

cards at an Improper time but alleges no misrepresentation or 

fraud in the procurement of these cards.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your challenge to the 

validity of AFGB's showing of interest is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J, Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

FE B 29 1972

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr.-Dennis Garrison

National Vice President, American Federation of

Government Employees ififi

Fifth District A D O

2109 Clinton Avenue, West 

Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Re: John F. Kennedy Space Center 

Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

Case No. 42-1762 (CA 26)

Dear Mr# Garrison:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrators dismissal of your complaint in 

the above named case which alleged a refusal to negotiate in 

violation of Section 19(a)(6) of the Order.

I am of'the opinion that the request for review raises 

issues which can be resolved best on the basis of record 

testimony* Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed 

to issue promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

192
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

FEB 29 1972

Mr. Alan J* Whitney 

National Executive Director

National Association of Government 167

Employees 

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Naval Air Rework Facility 

U. S, Naval Air Station 

Norfolk, Virginia 

Case No, 22-2568

Dear Mr, Whitney:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your five objections 

to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the runoff election 

held on August 26, 1971, between the' National Association of 

Government Employees Local R4-72 (NAGE) and the International 

Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, (IAM)

Local 39,

Objection No. 1

In this objection you contend that the election should be 

set aside because on July 22, 1971, in the cafeteria of the Activity 

T, J, Smith, Grand Lodge Representative of IAM "viciously and 

without provocation, attacked NAGE National representative,

John Wiseman, in the presence of numerous members of the bargaining unit,"

I have concluded that because you filed no objection to 

the first election, this objection, based upon an incident which 

occurred prior to the first election, cannot now be considered.

The critldal period preceding a runoff election during which conduct 

of one party may be used as grounds for setting aside the election 

begins running from the date of the first election. Conduct 

occurring prior to the first election, and not urged as objections 

to that election, may not be considered as grounds for setting 

aside the runoff election.

Moreover, despite your argument that the incident had a 

continuing effect that affected the runoff election, I note only 

NAGE had made an issue of this event in its campaign literature 

preceding the runoff*

- 2 -

In this objection your organization contends that the IAM 

"elected to ratify, confirm, and approve the beating administered to 

Mr, Wiseman" by Mr, T, J, Smith, IAM Grand Lodge Representative, by 

featuring the latter as "the chief spokesman for IAM" on prime 

television time on August 25, 1971, the eve of the runoff election.

On the contrary, I agree with the Acting Regional Administrator that a review of the text of the program furnished by NAGE 

does not support its contention that Mr, Smith who had appeared only 

briefly during the half hour program, had been featured as the chief 

spokesman for IAM. Moreover, there is no evidence that any reference 

had been made by Mr. Smith at any time during this program to the 

altercation of July 22, 1971. I agree that his appearance on this 

television program cannot be considered a basis for a valid objection.

In your request for review you assert that Mr. Smith did 

not have to refer to the incident in order for it to be remembered, 

because "...his mere presence was a continuing reminder of the 

assault, which was a matter of common knowledge among employees in 

the unit." Again, I note that only NAGE made an issue in its 

campaign literature of the altercation during tho critical period 

preceding the runoff election. Further, my conclusion that an 

incident occurring prior to the critical period preceding the runoff 

election cannot be used as grounds for setting aside the election 

is not changed by the subsequent conviction of Mr. Smith of the 

assault which took place before the first election.

Objection No. 3

In this objection the NAGE alleges violation of Section 

19(a)(1) and (3) of the Executive Order by the extension of IAM's 

collective bargaining agreement with the Activity during the 

pendency of NAGE's representation petition. You assert that by 

this act the Navy illegally sponsored, aided, and assisted IAM 

thereby making impossible the conduct of a fair and valid election.

Upon a careful review of the Report and Findings on the 

Objections and the material in the case file, I conclude that there 

is insufficient evidence available to me in order to rule on the 

issue raised. Accordingly, the case will be remanded to the Acting 

Regional Administrator for the purpose of developing by investigation 

the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the 

extension agreement.

Objection No. 4

In this objection NAGE alleges that IAM had received an 

unfair advantage by using the provisions of its "illegally" extended 

collective bargaining agreement as Important campaign propaganda.

Objection No. 2

193
It is contended that IAM had informed employees falsely that, if 

NAGE were the victor in the election, all employee records relating 

to seniority, job performance, and other personnel matters would 

be destroyed by the Navy and that employees would be subject 

immediately to both the loss of employee rights and disciplinary 

actions by the Navy* Further, it is asserted that IAM attempted 

to convince employees deceitfully that it had the continuing power 

to confer benefits relating to their hours of work and working 

conditions* You contend that by these alleged misrepresentations, 

which were of a material nature to the voters and published at a 

time when it had no opportunity to reply, IAM destroyed the 

conditions necessary for a fair and valid election*

I have concluded that because of the close relationship 

of this objection to Objection No* 3, dealing with the extension 

of the IAM contract, ruling on this objection should be withheld 

until additional investigation is conducted by the Regional 

Administrator*

Objection No, 5

Objection No* 5 is concerned with an IAM sponsored 

electlon-eve television program which featured the then State 

Senator Henry Howell of Norfolk, Virginia* The principal thrust 

of this objection by NAGE was that the appearance of Senator Howell 

on the program left the impression that the U* S* Government 

favored the election of IAM*

The Acting Regional Administrator found that the fact that 

IAM was able to persuade! a prominent Virginia political figure to 

appear on television in favor of IAM was not, standing alone, a 

violation of any known Federal statute. However, in your request 

for review, you question whether or not the Acting Regional Administrator considered what you believe to be a pertinent aspect of this 

objection, that Is, "**,whether and how many employees working 

within the bargaining unit are aware of the distinction between a 

U* S* Senator and a State Senator*"

After careful review of the transcript of the program, 

and the circumstances under which it was conducted, it is my opinion 

that the program contained only campaign propaganda which could 

have been evaluated intelligently by the voters. Further, I do not 

regard possible confusion in the minds of prospective voters between 

a state and U* S* Senator as grounds for setting aside the election* 

Therefore, I find this objection to be without merit*

In conclusion, I agree with the finding of the Acting 

Regional Administrator that Objections No* 1, No* 2, and No* 5 are

- 3 - - 4 . -

without merit. However, the case will be remanded to the Regional 

Administrator for further investigation of Objections No* 3 and 

4, as outlined above and for his Issuance of a supplementary report 

on his findings on these two objections*

Sincerely,

W, J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

194
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

m a r 2 3 1972

James L. Neustadt, Esq*

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

400 First Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Ret Tinker Air Force Base

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

Case No. 63-3202 (CA)

Dear Mr. Neustadt:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the 

complaint filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, 

AFL-CIO, Local 916 (AFGE) in the above-named case.

The pre-complaint charge in this matter was served on the 

Commanding General of the Activity on August 13, 1971. Thereafter, 

the final decision by the Activity in response to the charge was 

contained in a letter dated September 10, 1971, from the Base 

Commander of the Activity addressed to AFGE and received by AFGE 

on September 10, 1971. The complaint, which alleged 19(a)(1) and

(6) violations of Executive Order 11491 based on an alleged 

unilateral change impolicy by the Activity concerning weekend 

hours of work, was filed November 9, 1971. Because Section 203.2 

of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations requires that a complaint 

must be filed within thirty days after receipt by the charging 

party of the final decision, it is clear that the complaint herein 

was filed untimely.

In your request for review, you do not deny that the 

complaint in the subject case was filed more than thirty days 

after receipt by AFGE of the Activity’s final decision but 

your contention is that the thirty day limitation period applies 

only to complaints based on charges filed during the sixth 

month following the commission of the alleged violations. I 

find no justification for such an interpretation and agree with 

the Regional Administrator that the complaint was filed untimely.

168

-2'

Further, in vipw of this conclusion, I find it unnecessary to consider 

the merits of the complaint.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

195
U.S. DEPARTM ENT O F LABOR

O F F I C E O F T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A S H IN G T O N

MM 23.1972

Stuart Rothman, Esq. 169

Royall, Koegel & Wells 

1730 K Street, N, W.

Washington, D, C, 20006

Re: Veterans Administration 

Washington, D* C*

Case No. 22-2635 (RO)

Dear Mr. Rothman:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's denial of the request to intervene 

of the National Federation of Licensed Practical Nurses, in the 

above named case.

The Regional Administrator based his denial of the 

requested intervention on two grounds, (1) that the showing of 

interest necessary for intervention under Section 202.5(a) 

of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations was not submitted and 

(2) that the request to intervene was filed untimely pursuant 

to Section 202.5(c).

In Report Number 30 (copy enclosed) I stated that a 

request for review will not be entertained based upon a Regional 

Administrator's action dismissing a petition because of an 

Inadequate showing of interest because no provision is made in 

the Regulations for such a request for review. Similarly, the 

Regulations make- no provision for the filing of a request for 

review of the denial of intervention by a Regional Administrator 

based upon an inadequate showing of interest.

Accordingly, your request for review will not be entertained. In view of this disposition, I find it unnecessary to 

consider the Regional Administrator's additional basis for 

dismissal of the Intervention request in this matter.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Mr* Linton B« Salmon 170

Ad Hoc Committee for Free Elections 

P. 0* Box 2012, Central Station 

East Orange, New Jersey 07012

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

East Orange, New Jersey 

Case No* 32-2463 E*0*

Dear Mr* Salmon:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition 

to decertify National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1154 

(NFFE) as the exclusive representative of all regular work force 

and part-time employees of the Activity*

The evidence establishes that the Acting Regional 

Administrator dismissed your petition because, as required by 

Section 202*2(b)(2) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations, 

it was not accompanied by a showing of Interest of thirty (30%) 

percent of the employees in the unit indicating that the employees 

no longer desire to be represented for the purpose of exclusive 

recognition by the currently recognized or certified labor organization* In fact on its face your petition states that It is not 

supported by thirty (30%) percent or more of the employees in the 

unit* In these circumstances and noting also that it is my 

stated policy not to entertain requests for review of dismissal 

actions based on an Inadequate showing of interest (see enclosed 

Report on a Ruling of the Assistant Secretary, Report No* 30), 

your request for reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of your petition in the subject case is denied.

Your request for review docs contain allegations which 

relate to Section 18 of Executive Order 11491 as amended, entitled 

"Standards of Conduct for Labor'Organizations*" These allegations 

assert that "NFFE Local 1154 does not meet the requirements of 

democratic labor union" in the following respects (quoting from the 

request for review):

"There is evidence that thero was no lawful election 

conducted by Local 1154 NFFE at this hospital*

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

MAR 2:2 1972

196
- 2 -

Elections in 1968 and 1969 were conducted under 

the auspices of the National N.F.F.E. office. The 

election for 1970 was not held. When its President 

became ineligible to hold office all its officers 

were moved to the next higher position without 

voting."

Z am forwarding copies of this letter and of your request 

for review to the Director, Office of Labor-Management and Welfare 

Pension Reports of the Labor-Management Services Administration.

His office will contact you with respect to the aforementioned 

matters relating to Section 18 of the Executive Order.

Sincerely,

W. J.-Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Dennis Garrison 

National Vice President 

Fifth District

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

2109 Clinton Avenue, West 

Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Re: Headquarters, Third Army 

Fort McPherson, Georgia 

Case No. 40-3036 (CA 26)

United States Army School 

Training Center 

Fort McClellan, Alabama 

Case No. 40-3048 (CA 26)

Dear Mr. Garrison:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaints In the 

above-named cases alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1), (2),

(5), and (6) of Executive Order 11492, and I concur with his 

dismissal.

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

that a reasonable basis for the 19(a)(1) and (6) allegations of 

the complaints has not been established inasmuch as the Federal 

Labor Relations Council terminated all formal recognition on 

July 1, 1971, and, thereafter, dues could be withheld only for a 

labor organization having exclusive recognition status. Thus,

In the instant case, subsequent to July 1, 1972, the Activities 

would have had the right to terminate the dues withholding of those 

supervisors who had been covered previously by formal recognition* 

While it can be argued that the Activities were obligated to 

consult with regard to the termination of the dues checkoff 

covering the period March, 1971 to July 1, 1971, I consider that 

further proceedings in this regard are unwarranted because no 

"make whole" remedy would be available. Thus, payment of membership dues is an obligation of membership in a labor organization 

and is the primary responsibility of the members themselves and 

not of the employing Agency or Activity.

In addition, I concur with the Regional Administrator's 

finding that there is no evidence of any violation of Section 19(a)

(2), and that the allegation of violation of Section 19(a)(5) of

MAR 2.1=1972

171
- 2-

the Order Is Inapplicable to the facts of the case, because this 

latter section relates to matters concerning the according of 

appropriate recognition rather than to the conduct of the bargaining 

relationship.

It should be noted that my decision in this matter would 

not preclude an appeal through the Department of the Army's 

Grievance and Appeal Procdures regarding the savings provision of 

the 7PM Supplement 990-1, Part 550-310(b), which provision is 

outside the scope of the Executive Order.

Based on the foregoing, your request seeking reversal

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in 

the subject cases is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

o f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

MAR 2 1

Mr, David S, Barr

Bredhotf, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen 172

8t Peer

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: U. S. Naval Air Station

Quonset Point, Rhode Island 

Case No. 31-5476 (25) E.O.

Dear Mr. Barr:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed 

In the above named case.

I have concluded that the request for review raises 

issues which can be resolved best on the basis of record testimony, Accordingly, the Regional Administrator Is directed to 

issue promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

198
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S u c r k t a h v

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Herbert Cahn

President, Local 475

National Federation of Federal

Employees

P. 0. Box 294

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: Department of the Army

U*S. Army Electronics Command

Ft, Monrnouth, New Jersey

Case No. 32-1343

Dear Mr, Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the

election held in the above-named case on September 2, 1971.

The first two objections concern the election date and

the manner in which it was selected,, Section 202.7(c) of the

Regulations states thac if the parties to an election are unable

to agree upon election procedures "the Area Administrator, acting

on behalf of the Assistant Secretary, shall decide these matters."

In the present case, the parties to the election were given ample

opportunity to set the election procedures. I find that when

no agreement was reached by the parties, the Area Administrator,

correctly and without prejudice, set the election procedures

including the election date.

The third objection accused the Area Administrator of

failing to act on the contents of an additional statement

inscribed by the NFFE on the parties' election agreement. The

enclosed Assistant Secretary's Report No. 20 explains my policy

regarding such "side agreements•" Because no evidence was

furnished to indicate how any of the objections made regarding

the "side agreement" had an adverse effect on the election, I will

not undertake to police such agreement. In these circumstances,

I affirm the Regional Administrator's finding that the third

objection is without merit.

r q US!*-

173

- 2 -

The fourth objection claims that the Activity failed to

post election notices until August 24, 1971, five days after the

final .day for submitting applications for absentee ballots. The

evidence establishes that the removal of the notices on August 19, 1971

and the reposting of the notices on August 24, 1971, in no way

invalidated the original posting from August 16 to August 19, 1971,

because the notices were changed only to reflect the new location

of one polling place. In the circumstances, because the alteration

involved nothing more than a change of polling place location with

no change in the mail ballot procedure, I find that the removal

and reposting of the notice had no effect on any individual's right

to request a mail ballot and, therefore, affirm the Regional

Administrator's finding in this respect.

The fifth objection stated that mail ballots were denied

improperly to employees on "all kinds of leave" and that employees

in the military were required to appear in person to vote. The

Decision and Direction of Election in the instant case stated

specifically that military personnel eligible to vote in the

election were required to,appear at the polls. With respect to

employees on leave status, it is my stated policy to require such

employees to appear at the polls in order to vote (See the Procedural

Guide for Conduct of Elections. Appendix 1, page 1, paragraph 3).

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator's action in authorizing

that mail ballots be made available only to employees assigned

temporarily to other worksites for official business was appropriate.

The final, objection accused the agency management's

personnel office of giving special assistance to the Petitioner.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find that because

NFFE did not present any evidence in support of this allegation,

it did not satisfy its obligation to bear the burden of proof as

required under Section 202.20(d) of the Regulations. Accordingly,

the Regional Administrator correctly dismissed this objection.

In view of the foregoing conclusions, I find that no

further investigation is warranted with respect to the challenged

ballots in this matter as they were not sufficient in number to

affect the results of the election. Under all of the foregoing

circumstances, your request for reversal of the Regional

Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the election is

denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

199
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O m c s o r t h e a s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. T. Lamar Noblitt 

National Representative 

American Federation of Government 

Employees 

Box 115

Mulberry, Tennessee 37359

Re: IRS, Memphis Service Center 

Memphis, Tennessee 

Case No. 41-2763 (RO 25)

Dear Mr. Noblitt:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's denial of the American Federation 

of Government Employees request to intervene in the above nrin.oU 

case.

It is found that your request is procedurally defective 

in two respects. First, the request for review was untimely 

because it was not received in office by tho date specified 

in the Regional Administrator's dismissal letter. Second, 

contrary to the requirements of Section 202.6(d), a copy of 

tho request for review was not served on the Regional Administrator.

Accordingly, your request for review is denied.

Sincerely,

V/. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

£PR 2 5 1 9 B

174

V

A P R 2 5 1972

1 7 S Mrs. Mildred K. Spradlay 

1618 North Central Avenue 

Tifton, Georgia 31794

Re: 2024th Communications Squadron 

Moody Air Force Base, Ga.

Case No. 40-3501 (CA 26)

Dear Mrs. Spradley:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint 

filed in the above named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)

(1), (2) and (4) of Executive Order 11491.

In agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, I 

find that Report No. 25 which was enclosed in the dismissal 

Letter dated January 19, 1972, applies to the present case.

Report No. 25 was based upon a ruling that the Assistant Secretary 

will not proceed in a case when the issue is an alleged violation 

of Section 19(a)(1), (2) or (4) of the Executive Order when an 

established grievance or appeals procedure covers the complaint 

and the Agency alleges a lack of Jurisdiction under Section 19(d) 

of the Order. The Activity asserted as a defense to your complaint 

that the grievances which constituted the basis for your complaint 

should be processed under established Activity grievance procedure 

and that such procedure is the exclusive means for resolving 

the complaint in accordance with Section 19(d) of Executive 

Order 11491.

The evidence supports the Activity's position in this 

regard. At the time the events occurred which gave rise to your 

complaint and, in fact, at the time your complaint was filed on 

November 17, 1971, the amendment of Section 19(d) resulting from 

Executive Order 11616 was not yet effective, becoming so on 

November 24, 1971. Thus, the provisions of Section 19(d) prior 

to its amendment were still controlling, having the effect in the 

circumstances of this case of removing the coverage of the Executive 

Order with respect to your complaint.

With respect to your reference in your request for review 

to advice given you on September 30, 1971, by the Director of the 

Office of Federal Labor-Uanagement Relations indicating that you

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c b o p t h e a s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

200
- 2 -

might file a complaint alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) 

and (2) of Executive Order 11491, such advice was given because 

the Activity’s position regarding Section 19(d) had not been 

mentioned in your request for information. However, subsequently, 

when the Activity asserted Section 19(d) as a defense to your 

complaint involving matters which occurred prior to November 24,

1971, dismissal under Section 19(d) of the complaint In the subject 

case became warranted.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

w. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 2 5 1972.

Mr. Robert J. Gorman

Chairman, Chicago Council jiy

National Federation of Federal Employees I / O

860 North State Street, #4 N 

Chicago, Illinois 60610

Rei Federal Aviation Administration 

Great Lakes Region 

Airport Division 

Case No. 50-5529 (25)

Dear Mr. Gorman:

X have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your CU petition and 

have decided that the question regarding the nature of the 

Activity's reorganization and its effect upon the employees 

in your exclusively recognized unit can be resolved best on 

the basis of record testimony.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the petition is granted and the 

Regional Administrator is directed to issue a notice of hearing 

consolidating this matter with the RA petition filed by the 

Activity in Case No. 50-5522 (25) which involves closely related 

issues.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

201
U .S. DEPARTMENT O F L A B O R

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s ^ c r e t a « y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr, James McCord J ^ 1912.

National Representative . . 177

National rederation of Federal i^mpioycos 

40 Lincoln Street 

East Orange, New Jersey 07017

Re: GenerrJ Services Administration 

Region 2, Trenton, New Jersey 

Case No, 32-2426 EO

Dear Mr, McCord:

I have considered carefully your request for-review o* 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition 

seeking a unit clarification in the above-named case.

The proscription in Section 10(b)(3) of the Ord >r p':ninr» 

establishing a unit under Executive Order 11^91 which in;:] nci 

both guards and other employees is applicable to your petition. 

The recognition language in the negotiated agreement* botweon tho 

National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1ST57 and the 

General Services Administration, Region 2, defines the unit in 

clear and unambiguous terms, namely, "...all Fublic Bui] d.1 nr.

Service wage grade employees...’ It appears, therefore, that 

Class Act (OS) employees, including guards, were to be crcludml 

from the unit. Moreover, the roster of employees which tho 

Activity utilized in making its determination regarding the jjrnnl. 

ing of exclusive recognition reveals that employee,working as 

guards were in the GS classification.

For purposes of ascertaining the intent of the pcrti.-^ 

regarding the scope of the unit, it was considered to br'

immaterial that a guard had been a charter member of th^ labor 

organization seeking exclusive recognition. Further, t'-e remrini 

arguments you presented both in your letter to the Rcfii.onr.l 

Administrator and in your request for review were not considered 

to vary the expressed written intent of the parties, i.e., to 

accord exclusive recognition to'a unit of "all Fublic Building 

Service wage grade employees,"

Accordingly, because the proposed clarification.in 

effect seeks to establish a new unit which would include guards 

together with non-guards, your request to reverse the Acting 

Regional Administrator^ dismissal of your petition is denied.

Sincerely,

VT. J, Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

202
APR £ 6 1972

Stanley B. .Gruber, Esq, 178

Abraham E. Freedman, Esq.

36 Seventh Avenue 

New York, N. Y. 10011

Re: Corps of Engineers

Philadelphia District 

Customs House 

Case No. 20-2952 (CU)

Dear Sirs:

X have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your clarification of 

unit (CU) petition in the above-named case and concur with the dismissal.

I find that your attempt to consolidate two established units 

by means of a CU petition is inconsistent with the intent of Sections 

202.1(c) and 202.2(c) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary 

which concern CU anc1" amendment of certification (AC) petitions. Basically, the intent of a CU petition is to provide a vehicle for 

determining the correct unit placement of disputed classifications of 

employees. On the other hand, the proper vehicle for the consolidation 

of two established units is an R0 petition which would provide the 

employees involved with an opportunity to express their desires regarding 

inclusion in a broadened unit on the basis of a self-determination 

election. The fact that the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal 

letter was inaccurate factually in that it indicated the size of the 

Essayon unit to be double that of the Comber-Goethals unit when, in fact, 

it approximates only about 60 percent of the certified unit, was not 

considered to require a contrary result.

It should be noted that my decision herein does not preclude the 

parties from engaging in joint negotiations covering any combination of 

units at any level of the agency where the parties are in agreement that

-2-

such an arrangement would provide for more meaningful negotiations. 

This approach has been suggested in Recommendation E, 3 in the Study 

Committee's Report and Recommendations on Labor-Management Relations 

in the Federal Service, August 1969, the "legislative history" of 

Executive Order 11491.

Based on the foregoing, your request that the Acting Regional 

Administrator's dismissal be reversed is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

203
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 28, 1972

Mr. Roger P. Kaplan 

General Counsel

National Association of 1*7^

Government Employees 

1341 G. Street, N. W.

Washington,~D. C. 20005

Re: Defense Supply Agency 

Defense Depot 

Memphis, Tenn.

Case No. 41-2672 (RO 25)

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

I have received your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed by Local R5-66, 

National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) in the 

above-named case.

The Regional Administrator, in his letter dismissing the 

petition, directed attention to the requirement under Section 

202.6(d) of the Regulations that copies of a request for review 

must be served on him and each of the parties to the proceeding.

I am advised that the Regional Administrator was not served with 

a copy of the request. This is confirmed by the statement of 

service filed with the original of the request. The statement 

of service further indicates that you failed to serve the 

Activity where the employees claimed in the petition are employed.

My position with respect to the service requirement under 

Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations is stated in Report No. 14 

(copy enclosed).

In view of the foregoing, your request for review has not 

been considered and is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 28, 1972

Mr. Thomas D. Miles 

President

National Association of Government A o n

Employees, Local Rl-34 

79A Broadmeadow Road 

Marlboro, Mass. 01752

Re: U. S. Army Natick Laboratories 

Natick, Mass.

Case No. 31-5463 (CA) EO

Dear Mr. Miles:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your 

complaint in the above named case.

I find it unnecessary to make any determination regarding 

the merits of the case as the request for review is procedurally 

defective. The telegraphic request for review dated February 28, 

1972 contained no facts or reasons supporting it, contrary to the 

provisions of Section 203.7(c) of the Regulations, which requires 

that a request for review shall contain a complete statement 

setting forth facts and reasons upon which the request is based. 

This deficiency in your request for review was not remedied by 

your letter of March 20, 1972 addressed to the Director, Office 

of Federal Labor-Management Relations which set forth facts and 

reasons intended to support the request for review, because it 

was submitted three weeks late.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

204
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O r n c k o r t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mrs. Mildred Spradley 

Financial Secretary 

International Brotherhood of 

Firemen and Oilers, AFL-CIO 

Local 312

1618 Noirth Central Avenue 

Tlfton, Georgia 31794

Re: Department of the Air Force

Moody Air Force Base, Georgia 

Case No. 40-3095 (RO 25)

Dear Mrs, Spradley:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the 

election held in the above named cose. I have concluded that 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objections was 

warranted.

Objection No. 1

In this objection you contend that certain employees feared 

reprisal or were given additional work loads by the Activity because 

of their union participation. In support of this objection you 

submitted a sin^e affidavit by an employee in the petitioned-for 

unit who alleges that she had been harassed, intimidated, and 

subjected to reprisals, such as a reprimand being placed in her 

file, because she submitted grievances. The Activity denied all 

of the foregoing allegations except the above noted reprimand 

which it stated was precipitated by -the performance of the employee*s 

duties and her use of leave and was not based on union considerations.

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the 

Activity engaged in any conduct that reasonably couid result in 

employees fearing reprisals or additional.work if they engaged in 

union activities. Therefore, no merit is.found to this objection.

Objection No. 2

In this objection it is your contention that personnel 

actions were taken which changed employees* duties and supervisors.

In support of this allegation you have submitted your:job description 

in which you allege that several changes had been made in retaliation 

for your activities on behalf of Local 312, including the processing 

of grievances.

APR 2 8 1372

181

I agree with the Regional Administrator's conclusion, 

that no evidence has been furnished which shows that the changes 

in your job description were motivated by ahy anti-union considerations 

or that the changes were not in accordance with the Activity*s statement that a squadron-wide reorganization was in process. The 

allegation that your position is the only in the squadron being 

reorganized, has not been substantiated by evidence. The second 

allegation made in the request for review, that the timing of the 

changes in the Job description, the day before the election should 

be significant, was considered to be insufficient, standing alone, 

to warrant setting aside the election. Therefore, I find no merit 

to this objection.

Objection No. 3

In this objection It. is contended that threats of Increased 

hours and work were made just prior to the election by the Activity.

In support of this assertion you refer to the change in hours of 

approximately 9 unit employees at the Commissary on May 19, 1971.

The Regional Administrator concluded that, since the 

change in hours occurred approximately one month before the petition 

was filed and as there was no evidence that the change in hours either 

prevented employees from voting or was due to anti-union considerations 

you had not borne the burden of proof as required by Section 202.20 

(d) of the Assistant Secretary’s Regulations. In your request for 

review you contend that the change in hours imposed a hardship on 

the employees and that the Activity was aware of the union membership 

drive at the time of the schedule change for the Commissary employees.

I find no evidence that the alleged hardship imposed by 

the change in hours affected the employees* exercise of their right 

to vote. Nor do I find any evidence to support your assertion 

that the Activity was aware of the union membership drive at the 

time the change of nours was instituted. Therefore, I find no 

merit to this objection.

Objection No. 4

In this objection you allege that the Activity disregarded 

"employees welfare in certain sections," The employees referred 

to are the 9 employees whose schedule was changed in the Commissary 

and 4 telephone operators who have been scheduled to work alone from 

11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. and allegedly have been furnished poor lighting

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

no evidence has been submitted to connect the alleged disregard for 

employee welfare with the election in this matter. Moreover, there
- 3 -

is a similar lack of evidence with respoct to the allegation that 

the alleged disregard for employee welfare created a "safety hazard." 

Therefore, no merit is found to this objection.

Objection No, 5

With respect to this objection, it is contended that the 

employees feared and were reluctant to vote because the management 

observers were members of tho personnel, staff. However, the Activity 

contended that neither of the observers had anything to do with 

personnel actions such as ranking or selecting employees.

I have concluded that the Regional Administrator ruled 

correctly when he found no merit to this objection because there was 

no opposition by you prior to the election to the Activity’s choice 

of observers and no evidence was produced as to how thdse observers 

caused fear.

You have alloged in the request for review that management 

actions against ccrtain employees whom they knew to be union members 

gave the employees good cause to fear reprisals from the Activity 

if they voted. However, you have not specified any particular 

management actions, nor have you provided evidence to support your 

allegation as required by the Assistant Secretary's Regulations. 

Therefore, I find no merit to this objection.

Objection No. 6

It is contended in this objection that since 50 percent 

of the unit employees signed authorization cards, IBFO should be 

made the exclusive representative on that basis alone. Supporting 

this contention you have submitted three petitions signed by 23 

employees which urged, among other things, that the IBFO be granted 

exclusive recognition notwithstanding the results of the election.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator and noting 

also that the Executive Order requires an election as a condition 

precedent to obtaining recognition, I find no merit to this objection.

Objection No. 7

You have asserted regarding this objection that even though 

a majority of votes cast were against exclusive recognition, the 

j>ercentage was not sufficient to be representative of the unit.

Because no evidence has been furnished that eligible voters 

were prevented from cxercising their voting rights, I uphold the 

Regional Administrator's determination that there is no merit to this 

objection.

Objection No, 8

In this objection you.contend that because only 80 out 

of 214 eligible employees voted in the election, the Activity must 

have interfered with the election by threats or other coercive 

actions.

You have submitted no evidence to support this allegation. 

The allegations in this objection and in the request for review are 

comprised solely of speculation.arid unsupported opinion, I find, 

therefore, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that there 

is no merit to this objection.

Accordingly, your request that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the objections bo reversed is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

206 o
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 28, 1972

Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President, Local 476

National Federation of Federal Employees 

P. 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey

Case No. 32-2473 CA

Dear Mr. Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the abovenamed case.

The Regional Administrator’s dismissal letter of March 17,

1972, addressed to you, set forth the manner in which his action 

could be reviewed. The letter pointed out that Section 203.7 of 

the Regulations was applicable to such a review, and included 

the following information, "Such request shall contain a complete 

statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which it is 

based." Notwithstanding these directions, your telegraphic 

request for review did not contain such a statement, and no 

further material was submitted. Accordingly, your request for 

review is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 2 8 1972

Mr. Edgar E. Burbridge 

Former President.

Local 1497

National Federation of Federal 183

Employees, Ind.

5445 East Kentucky Avenue 

Denver,„ Colorado 80222

Re: Air Training Command

Lowry Technical Training Center 

.Lowry Air Force Base 

Denver, Colorado 

Case, No. 61-1514 (CA)

Dear Mr. Burbridge:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in 

the above-named case alleging a violation of Section 19(a)(6) 

of Executive Order 11491.

From a review of »the facts, I am in agreement with the 

Regional Administrator that the complaint was not filed timely 

pursuant to Section 203.2 of the Regulations. In your request 

for review you argue that you did not consider the letter of 

September 15, 1971 to be a final answer because you felt the 

two parties were still trying to settle the matter informally 

and because the Civilian Personnel Officer was not authorized 

to sign "For the Commander." I.agree with the Regional 

Administrator that the Activity“s letter dated September 15, 1971, 

was a final decision as evidenced by the fact the subsequent 

conversations conducted between you and the representatives 

of the Activity did not pertain to the final decision set forth 

in the letter. As to your contention that the Civilian Personnel 

Officer lacked authority to sign for the Commander, Air Force 

Regulations 40-102 provide that the Civilian Personnel 

Officer has that authority.

207
2-

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is 

denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery,-Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f ic e o f t h e A s s is t a n t . SiiCixJTAKY 

WASHINGTON*. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Mike Gerondakis 

National-Representative 

National Federation of Federal 

Employees 

5419 Blueridge Court 

Orangeville, California 95662

APR 2 8 1972

184

Re: Comptroller Directorat 

Tooele Army Depot 

Tooele, Utah 

Case No. 61-1481 (RO)

Dear Mr. Gerondakis:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional-Administrator1s denial of your request to intervene 

in representation proceedings at the Comptroller Directorate, 

Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah.

You are correct in your assertion that, as exclusive 

representative of the petitioned for unit, the NFFE was not 

required to submit a ten (10%) percent showing of interest 

to intervene in the representation proceedings initiated by 

the American Federation of Government Employees at the 

Comptroller Directorate. However, as I stated in my Report No. 43, 

a copy of which is enclosed, "an incumbent labor organization, 

like any other intervenor, must file under'Section 202.5(c) of 

the Regulations, a notice of intervention within 10 days after 

the initial date of posting of the notice of petition..0" In the 

present case the notice of petition was posted November 15, 1971 

through November 26, 1971, while your request to intervene was 

not received until January 13, 1972.

Despite receipt on January 13, 1972 by the Area 

Administrator of a carbon copy of a letter allegedly mailed on 

November 15, 1971, in which the NFFE expressed its desire to 

intervene in the proceedings, the Regional Administrator 

concluded that Section 202.5(c) had not been complied with 

and therefore denied as untimely* the request for intervention.

208
Under these circumstances, and after consideration of 

your request for review, I find that insufficient evidence was 

submitted to alter the Regional Administrator's action.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's denial of your request to i*itais denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O F F I C E O F T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

W A S H I N G T O N

Apr 2 s i97|

Mr. Vincent 0. O'Brien

President A o CL

Operations Analysis Association #011 

Quonset Point Naval Air Station 

Quonset Point, Rhode Island 02819

Re; U. S. Naval Air Rework Facility 

Quonset Point, Rhode Island 

Case No. 31-3475

Dear Ur. O'Brien:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed in 

the above named case.

I have oonoluded that the request for review raises 

Issues which can be resolved best on the basis of record testimony. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to 

issue promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

209
O f f ic e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 28, 1972

Mr. Dolph David Sand 

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 4 o c

Employees, AFL-CIO X O °

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Amarillo, Texas 

Case No. 63-2176 (RO)

Dear Mr. Sand:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator*s Supplemental Report and Findings on Objections 

wherein he directed a rerun election, having found merit to certain objections filed by the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 

1138, Ind. (NFFE) to an election conducted on September 30, 1970.

In its objections NFFE alleged that, the Activity failed to 

initiate action against the (unknown) individual who removed NFFE literature from employee mail slots in one of the wards on September 10, 19.70, 

and that its local employee president received unjust criticism in a 

letter from the Activity, on September 11, 1970, which letter also 

improperly ordered NFFE to cease and desist distributing material on 

VA property.

On September 10, 1970, the employee president of NFFE*s local 

union wrote a letter to the VA Hospital Director complaining about the 

removal of NFFE's newsletters from employee mail slots on one of the 

wards and requested that the Activity initiate steps to prevent a recurrence. On the morning of the following day, September 11, 1970, 

the same employee and two other officers of the local union distributed the NFFE newsletter in a non-work hallway, of the hospital during 

non-work time, and were verbally advised by the Activity's personnel 

officer to stop such disbribution. On that same date, a letter was sent 

by the personnel officer to the employee president of the local union, 

advising him, in response to his letter of September 10, 1970, that the 

employee mail slots on the wards were for internal use only, and also 

ordered him to cease and desist the distribution of NFFE material on 

VA property. Additionally, the letter set forth arrangements for a 

meeting of the parties on September 14, 1970, for the purpose of developing a campaign* or side agreement, which agreement was eventually 

consummated on September 15, 1970.

- 2 -

The Activity took the position that the employee mail slots 

were for internal use only and that the placing of the material therein 

by NFFE was not authorized. Additionally, it stated the intent of the 

cease and desist "order” of September 11, 1970 was to advise NFFE of 

the pertinent- facts and to direct NFFE to act only within the limits 

to be established by a campaign agreement. The Activity acknowledges 

that its letter was issued with reliance on those guidelines set forth 

in FPM Letter No. 711-6.

The Regional Administrator stated, that the absolute prohibition 

on the distribution of campaign literature constituted a deprivation of 

the rights guaranteed employees under Section 1 of the order and that in 

light of the decision in Charleston Naval Shipyard A/SLMR No. 1, the 

broad restraints placed on NFFE by the Activity, even for a short period 

of time, clearly was prohibited.

In your.request for review in behalf of AFGE, you assert that 

the Activity's action in removing NFFE material from the mail slots was 

designed to protect all parties and give all parties an equal opportunity. You further assert that the cease and desist order was issued 

"after the fact" and had no detrimental effect, but that even assuming 

that the order was issued improperly, it could have no effect, since 

NFFE's newsletter had already been distributed.

I am well aware that the Charleston case evolved from an unfair labor practice complaint, whereas the subject case arose from a 

representation proceeding. However, I find, in agreement with the 

Regional Administrator, that the findings in Charleston are applicable 

to the present case. In Charleston I held that reliance upon the subject FPM Letter for Implementation of an invalid no-distribution rule 

is no defense to a violation of Executive Order 11491. In the present 

case the Activity relied upon the FPM Letter in Issuing the cease and 

desist order to NFFE on September 11, 1970. Although the content of 

the order possibly was modified by the subsequent execution of the side 

campaign agreement on September 15, 1970, it was never revoked by the 

Activity and remained in effect for a period of almost three weeks before the election. In such circumstances, I agree with the Regional 

Administrator that the issuance of the cease and desist order herein 

placed an improper prohibition on the distribution of campaign literature by NFFE and interfered with employee rights guaranteed under 

Section 1(a) of the Order. In view of this conclusion, I find it unnecessary to decide whether the Activity acted properly in restricting 

the use of employee mail slots in the wards to internal use.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Regional Administrator's supplemental Report and Findings on Objections is denied, and 

the Regional Administrator is directed to proceed to a rerun election.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

210
MY 10.1972

Mr. Thomas D. Miles

President

Local R.l-34

National Association of Government 187

Employees 

79A Broadmeadow Road 

Marlboro, Massachusetts 01752

Re: U.S0 Army Natick Laboratories 

Natick, Massachusetts 

Case No. 31-5460 E.O.

Dear Mr. Miles:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal cf the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

on January 4, 1972 in the above named case.

I find it unnecessary to make any determination regarding 

the merits of the case as the request for review is procedurally 

defective. The telegraphic request for review dated January 17, 1972 

contained no facts or reasons upon which it was based, contrary to 

Che provisions of Section 203.7(c) of the Regulations, which require 

chat a request for review shall contain a complete statement setting 

forth facts and reasons upon which the request is based. By letter 

dated March 7, 1972, the Respondent called attention to the fact 

that the request for review did not meet the requirements of 

Section 203.7(c), and requested denial of the request on that ground. 

The deficiency in your request for review was not remedied by the 

National Association of Government Employees* letter dated 

April 13, 1972, some three months later, which set forth facts and 

reasons intended to support the request for review.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is 'denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LAJjOlv

O r j 'i C K o f t u b A s s i s t a n t S i:c r ;:';'a r v ;

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2021:

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N

I d 1972

Mr. Gerardo Vasquez

American Federation of Government a c o

Employees, Local 2968 A O O

calle 14 #1067 

Villa Nevarez, P. R. 00927

Re: U, S„ Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection 

Division 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

Case No. 37-1015 E. O,

Dear Mr. Vasquez:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition 

in the above named case.

I am in accord with the Acting.Regional Administrator's 

determination that the American Federation of Government Employees, 

AFL-CIO (AFGE) petition was not timely filed. This is so because 

the Basic Agreement between the Federal Plant Quarantine Inspectors 

National Association and the Department of Agriculture was in 

effect at the tj.me of tho filing of AFGE's petition, and AFGE's 

petition was not filed timely, i.e. "not more than ninety (90) 

days and not less than sixty (60) days prior to the terminal date 

(October 1) of such agreement" as required by Section 202.3(c) of 

the Regulations.

As the petition was not timely filed, I find it unnecessary 

to consider the Acting Regional Administrator’s additional reason 

for dismissing the petition on the ground that the unit sought 

was inappropriate for the purpose’ of exclusive recognition. 

Accordingly, your request for.review seeking reversal of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

211
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O p t i c s o r t h e A s s i s t a n t S k c h e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Colonel John T. Stanfield 

Deputy Commander 

U* S. Army Aeronautical Depot 

Maintenance Center 

Department of the Army 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78419

Re: U* S. Army Aeronautical Depot 

Maintenance Center

r Corpus Christi, Texas

Case No* 63-2865 (RO)

Dear Colonel Stanfield:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Objections, 

finding merit to certain objoctions filed by the American 

Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to an election held 

August 5, 1971, and directing .a rerun election* Basod upon a 

full review of the circumstances surrounding the conduct of 

the election, the evidence submitted and the positions offered 

by the parties, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator's 

decision was warranted*

In your request for roviow you contdst the Regional 

Administrator's action in upholding objections 6, 7, 8, 0, 10 

and 11* You acknowledge the omission of the word "not" from 

the Official Notice of Election but contend that the distribution 

to employees of the 1500 correct notices of election enabled 

the eligible voters to cast informed ballots. Tho effect of the 

omission of the word "not" was to describe the ineligible categories 

of employees as eligible voters. The Official Notice of Election 

is a basic document essential to any election procedure because it 

desorlbes the voting unit, among other things, and therefore, 

must be correct.

1 find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

that the error in describing the unit in the posted notices of 

election warrants tho setting aside of the election*

MAY 18.1972

1 8 9

Accordingly, your request that the Regional Administrator's 

Report and Findings on Qbjootions bo reversed i.« denied and thn 

Regional Administrator is directed to proceed y:l.i.h the processing 

of the case as set forth in his Report and Findings on Objections„

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

212
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

May 31, 1972

William B. Peer, Esq. 1 Qfl

Bradhoff, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen & Peer ACIU

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20035

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Atlanta Air Traffic Control Tower 

Case No. 40-3470 (CA 26)

Dear Mr. Peer:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the above named 

case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (3) of Executive Order 

11491.

I am of the opinion that the request for review raises issues which 

can be resolved best on the basis of record testimony. Evidence should be 

presented both =as to the alleged labor.organization status of ATCA as 

related to the Section 19(a)(3) allegation, and as to whether the Activity 

may have violated Section 19(a)(1) of the Order by the granting of permission 

for the posting of certain ATCA literature, the contents of which may have 

had the effect of interfering with, restraining or coercing employees of 

the Activity.

Specifically, the following issues should be explored at the

hearing:

1. The extent to which an activity or agency may deal with a 

professional association without encroaching upon subjects within the 

scope of bargaining negotiations with an exclusive representative.

2. The line of functional demarcation to be drawn between labor 

organizations and professional associations as these terms are defined or 

used in the Executive Order.

3. The conflict, on the one hand, between evidence submitted by 

the Complainant purporting to prove that ATCA has been acting as a labor 

organization, together with my finding in A/SLMR No. 10 that ATCA is a 

labor organization and, on the other hand, evidence of disclaimers by ATCA 

that it is or intends to be, a labor organization.

4. What responsibility, if any, does an activity or agency have 

to monitor or censor the content of bulletins or other publications of

professional associations prior to posting or internal distribution of such 

material on activity or agency premises where there is an exclusive 

representative.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to issue 

promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

213
O rriC K o f T h u A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

■ J -— .3 / - 7' ^

Mr. Glen J. Peterson

Area Director of Organization

American Federation of Government Employees 4 Q-4

St. Louis Area Office

P. .0. Box 5699

St. Louis, Missouri 63121

h.©» jjepai:trr.enc oi Housing ana 

Urban Development 

Detroit, Michigan 

Case No. 52-3582 (25)

Dear Mr. Peterson:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the 

election held in the above-named case on December 10, 1971.

Your objections to the election stem from alleged 

misrepresentations in the campaign literature distributed by the 

National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) on the day prior 

to the election. The literature described a previous election at 

the HUD St. Louis Area Office and bore the caption, "NFFE Victor 

Over AFGE in * Sore Loser' Election." The Pvegional Administrator 

dismissed the objections, stating that he did not view the 

statements contained in the campaign literature as being so untrue 

or misleading that they impaired the ability of the voters to 

judge the facts fairly.

I have previously ruled that elections will be set aside 

where deception occurs that constitutes campaign trickery 

involving a substantial misrepresentation of fact which impairs 

the employees’ ability to vote intelligently on the issues,and 

there is not time for the offended party to make an effective 

reply (see A/SLMR No* 31). Consistent with the Regional 

Administrator's decision, I find that the campaign literature 

in question was readily recognizable by the voters as selfserving campaign propaganda, that it contained no gross

- 2 -

misr.epresentation of a material fact and was not of such a nature 

as to deprive the employees of their ability to vote intelligently 

on the issues. I find further that in view of the nature of the 

NFFE literature, no time for reply was necessary.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the objections is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J, Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

214
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N

May 31, 1972

Mr0 Ralph C. Reeder 

Director, Office of Personnel

Health Services and Mental Health a n o

Administration of the Public Heallh 

Service, HEW 

Rockville, Maryland 20852

Re: Health Services and Mental Health

Administration Public Health Service, 

HE W

Case No. 50-5191 (25)

Dear Mr. Reeder:

I have considered carefully your request seeking reversal 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's denial of your request to 

revoke the certification accorded to Local 2343, American Federation 

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) in the above named case.

I have concluded, in agreenent with the Acting Regional 

Administrator, that the Area Office acted properly with respect 

to the handling of this case and that no action should be taken to 

revoke the certification. In my opinion, the Warden had apparent 

authority from Health Services and Mental Health Administration of 

the Public Health Service, HEW, (HSMHA) to act for it, by virtue 

of his position and because of the fact that the Executive Officer, 

Office of the Medical Director, Bureau of Prisons, had advised the 

Area Office on April 28, 1971 to serve a copy of the petition on 

the /arden, Thereafter, the Area Office did not act unreasonably 

in assuming that the Warden had authority to sign the consent agreement for H3MHA. Furthermore, I not$ that no inquiries or complaints 

were received from HEW or the Hospital Administrator prior to the 

certification despite the fact that the notice of petition and the 

notice of election, both of which contained the description of the 

unit involved, were posted at the Pe-nitentiary Hospital.

Accordingly, your request seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's refusal to revoke the certification is denied.

Sincerely,

J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOP.

June 22, 1972

Gordon P. Ramsey, Esq. 193

Gadsby & Hannah

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Norfolk Naval Shipyard ;

Portsmouth, Va.

Case No. 46-1617 (R0)

Dear Mr. Ramsey:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of all your Class I and II 

objections (except a portion of Objection No. 4 under Class II), 

relating to conduct allegedly affecting results of the second 

election in the subject case held on May 24, 1971 and find as 

follows:

Objection No. 1 (Class I)

In this objection you contend that the Assistant Secretary 

was without jurisdiction under Executive Order 11491 to rule on any 

matters relating to the first election in this matter conducted on 

December 4, 1969, by the Department of the Navy under the provisions 

of Executive Order 10988. You cite the December 14, 1971, decision 

of the Federal Labor Relations Council in FLRC Nos. 71A-33, 71A-44, 

and 71A-53 as controlling on this question. It is my opinion that 

the rationale supporting the denial of retroactivity of an amendment. modifying Executive Order 11491 is not analogous to the instant case. Thus, Executive Order 10988 provided the right to third 

party review of disputes involving majority representation. This 

right was continued without interruption under Executive Order 11491 

The facts in this case show that MTC filed a timely appeal from the 

Activity's dismissal of its objections to the first election with, 

the Assistant Secretary pursuant to Executive Order 11491, after 

Executive Order 10988 was revoked and Executive Order 11491 became 

effective. In these circumstances, I reaffirm my conclusion in 

A/SLMR No. 31 that Executive Order 11491 established the requisite 

authority for me to assert jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly 

NAGE cannot be certified as the exclusive representative of its 

claimed unit on the basis of the December 4, 1969, election conducted by the Department of tne Navy under the provisions of Executive Order 10988.
- 2-

Objections Nos. 2 and 3 (Class I)

In objections Nos. 2 and 3 you state that "...the decision and direction of a second election was invalid, as a matter of 

law, by reason of the refusal of the Assistant Secretary to disqualify himself..." As I stated in A/SLMR No. 31 I am mindful of 

my oath of office under which I assumed the obligation to carry 

out my assigned duties and responsibilities with full regard for 

the public interest. Since effectuation of such duties includes 

the requirement to administer and implement certain provisions of 

Executive Order 11491, I shall retain jurisdiction over this proceeding.

Objection No. 4 (Class I)

In this objection you state that "...the direction of a 

second election ]_ the election of May 24, 1971_/ was arbitrary and 

capricious and in complete violation of law." You cite my Report 

No'. 50 as basis for review and reconsideration of my direction of 

the second election. Report No. 50 states that "conduct occurring 

prior to the first election, and not urged as objections to that 

election, may not be considered as grounds for setting aside the 

runoff election, except in unusual circumstances." I cannot accept 

your interpretation of Report No. 50 as being germane to this case. 

In A/SLMR No. 31 I found that NAGE's offer of immediate free insurance warranted the setting aside of the first election. Consequently, I find no merit in this objection.

Objection No. 1 (Class II)

In this objection you contend that the Activity favored 

MTC by its indefinite extension of the collective bargaining agreement up to and subsequent to the second election of May 24, 1971.

I find that the agreement, on its face is not improper. As to the 

extension itself, I found in Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Florida, A/SLMR No. 155, that continuity and stability in 

a collective bargaining relationship is desirable and I considered 

it to be reasonable and proper that parties be permitted to extend, 

in writing, an agreement while awaiting resolution of a question 

concerning representation, if granting of the extension occurs 

during the term of the agreement. As the agreement is not improper 

on.its face, it does not constitute a continuing violation of 

Section 19 of the Order. Therefore, its effectiveness prior to the 

second election does not constitute objectionable conduct. In regard to the fact that the execution of the extension agreement occurred prior to the first election, I previously indicated in Report

-3-

No. 50 that such conduct cannot be alleged as objections to a 

second election, even assuming that the extension was improper 

under the aforementioned decision. Accordingly, I find objection 

No. 1 (Class II) to be without merit.

Objections No. 2 and 3 (Class II)

In these objections you allege that during the period 

from the date of the first election December 4, 1969, through and 

including May 24, 1971, the date of the second election, the following occurred: (1) MTC national representatives A1 Washington 

and T. J. Smith electioneered, campaigned, and solicited employees of the Activity during the employees' duty time in work areas; 

and (2) the Activity, by its unwillingness or failure to prohibit 

electioneering, open and notorious campaigning, and soliciting 

activities by MTC, has sponsored, controlled or otherwise assisted 

MTC. I agree with the Regional Administrator that the evidence 

you have submitted has failed to establish that the conduct NAGE 

objects to is of sufficient import to have affected the results 

of the second election. The presence of MTC national representatives in the Shipyard, consistent with the contractual rights, 

without more, in my opinion, is not improper conduct. Moreover, 

from the evidence available, I conclude that the Activity did take 

immediate and appropriate action to correct any breach of Shipyard 

rules by MTC representatives when such breach was brought to its 

attention. Although Washington's and Smith's actions inside the 

Shipyard might have been considered to be unfair by employees favorable to NAGE, I find no evidence that their conduct affected the 

results of the second election.

Objection No. 4 (Class II)

In this objection you contend, in part, that the Activity 

took no action against MTC representatives who passed out MTC literature in work areas during duty time or against an acting supervisor who also distributed MTC literature in working areas during 

duty time.' I agree with the Regional Administrator that the evidence 

submitted failed to establish that the incidents complained of adversely affected the results of the second election in light of the 

fact that the Activity, when it became aware of the improper conduct, took prompt corrective action which prevented any recurrences. 

In the remaining portion of Objection No. 4, you allege that certain of the Activity's supervisors did, approximately a month before the second election, threaten, coerce, and interfere with 

the rights of an employee machinist who at the time was also the 

President of the Local NAGE Council of Lodges. I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that the circumstances sur216
-4-

rounding the alleged threat by Activity supervisors against the 

President of Local NAGE Council of Lodges, including the possible 

impact of such alleged threat on other unit employees, raise reasonable questions of fact which warrant the issuance of a notice of 

hearing.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to 

issue promptly a notice of hearing in this proceeding limited to 

the aforementioned portion of Objection No. 4. I am mindful of the 

total elapsed period of time in this case. Therefore, I am requesting all parties to expedite all phases of the hearing.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

n- , r r JUN 2 719 72 Douglas L. Leslie, Esq. i Q 4

O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue 

1912 Sunderland Place, N. W.

Washington, D. C, 20036

Ro: Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, Virginia 

Case No. 46-1617 (RO)

Dear Mr. Leslie:

I have considered carefully your request for review of tho 

Regional Administrator's decision to issue a notice of hearing on 

an objection raised by the National Association of Government 

Employees (NAGE) relating to conduct allegedly affecting the results 

of the second election in the subject case held on May 24, 1971.

Your request for review is concerned exclusively with a 

portion of Objection No* 4 of NAGE's Class II Objections. In the 

portion of Objection No. 4 at issue, NAGE contends that certain of 

the Activity's supervisors did, approximately a month before the 

second election, threaten, coerce, and interfere with the rights of 

an employee machinist who at the time was also the President of the 

Local NAGE Council of Lodges.

After due consideration of your request for review, I find, 

in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that the circumstances 

surrounding the alleged threat by Activity supervisors against tho 

President of the Local NAGE Council of Lodges, including the possible 

impact of such alleged throat on other unit employees, raise reasonable 

questions of fact which warrant the issuance of a notice of hearing.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directod to issue 

promptly a notice of hearing on this portion of Objection No. 4 of 

NAGE's Class II Objections. I am mindful of the total elapsed period 

of time in this case. Therefore, I am requesting all parties to expedite all phases of the hearing.

Sincerely,

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

217
U .S..D EPARTM EN T OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. John Victor Tilly j q r

Jonnlngs, Gartland & Tilly ^

352 World Trade Canter JJJji Z 2 J972

San Francisco, California 96111

Ro: U. S. Public Health Service Hospital 

Departraont of Health, Education and 

Welfare 

San Francisco, California 

Case No„ 70-1803

Dear Mr. Tilly:

I have considered carefully your request for review filed 

on behalf of Clerical, Office and Technical Workers Union, Division 

of the Military Sea Transport Union, affiliated with Seafarers 

International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of Objection No. 1 to the election held 

in the above named case on August 31, 1071. I have not given 

consideration to Objections Nos. 2, 3 and 4 because your request 

did not question the Regional Administrator's findings as to those 

objections.

In your request for review you contend that the election 

should be set aside because it was not the "effective" choice of a 

majority of employees in the unit. You argue, in effect, that 

Section 202.17(c) of the Regulations, which states that an exclusive 

representative shall bo chosen by a majority of the valid votes 

cast should not apply when a "representative number" of eligible 

employees do not vote in tho election.

Contrary to your contention, I am of the opinion that 

Section 202.17(c) must be applied literally, in the absence of a 

showing that the election waa not properly publicized or that unusual 

circumstances were present. You do not contend that either of these 

situations in fact existed.

Further, I note, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

that the oloctlon was well publicized. The Notice of Election, 

which was posted in five separate locations (which wore agreed to 

in advance by tho parties) clearly reads: "An exclusive representative 

shall bo chosen by a majority of the valid ballots cast." Moreover, 

tho upcoming olootion rocoivod notlco in tho Activity nowolottor on 

two occasions within a month of tho olootion.

As the investigative file reveals no showing that the 

election was not properly publicized or that other unusual 

circumstances were present, Section 202.17(c) must be appliod 

literally.

Accordingly, your request seeking to reverse the Regional 

Administrator's overruling of Objection No. 1 is denied and the 

Regional Administrator 16 directed to have an appropriate certificate 

of representative issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

218
U.S. DEPARTM ENT O F LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr.. Joseph Girlando 

National Representative

Amorlean Federation of 196

Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

300 Main Street 

Orange, New Jersey 07050

Re: Department of tho Army 

Picatinny Arsenal 

Dover, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2475 E.O,

Dear Mr. Girlando:

Tho undersigned has received your request for review of 

tho Regional Administrator's dismissal of a complaint against 

the above named Activity filed by Local 225, American Federation 

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE),

A review of the case reveals that the Regional Administrator advised Local 225, AFGE, of its right, under Section 

203.7(c) of the Regulations, to obtain a review of his action by 

filing a request for review with the undersigned.to bo received 

by roe by the close of business on April 25, 1972. Your request 

for review dated and mailed April 24, 1972, was received on 

April 27, 1972, and therefore was untimely.

Accordingly, your request for review will not be

considered.

Sincoroly,

W.-J, IJsery, Jr.a 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTM ENT O F LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s sc w a tT A rtv

W A S H IN G T O N

Captain George O. Fowler, SC, USN * q»-j

Defense Supply Agency

Defense Depot Tracy [Hm no 1Q7?

Tracy, California 95376 J

Re: Defense Supply Agency 

Tracy, California 

Case No. 70-2418

-Dear Captain Fowler:

I have considered carefully your request for roviow of the 

Regional Administrator’s action ordering a rorun election and 

requesting that the parties to tho January 19, 1972, representation 

election in the above-named case enter into a hew Consent Election 

Agreement precedent to. the conduot of tho rorun election.

Based upon a full roviow of the circumstances surrounding 

the conduct of the election and the positions offered by the 

parties, it is concluded that the Regional Administrator's decision 

was warranted. The theft of the ballots and other election matorials 

from the automobile belonging to’ the Compliance Officer who supervised the election precluded the eventual resolution of the 37 

challenged ballots. It is conceivable that these ballots could 

have determined the outcome of tho election, and to disregard thoso 

ballots on tho suppo; ition that the individuals who cast the 

challenged ballots were management officials and, thcreforo, ineligible 

voters, would constitute too great a departure from acceptable 

election procedures to bo permissible.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of tho Regional 

Administratorr,s action is doniod,

Sincoroly,

W.. J. Usery,. Jr.. 

Assistant Secretary o£ Labor

219
June 28, 1972

Mr. Geoffrey D. Spinks 

Labor Relations Advisor 

Disputes & Appeals Section

Labor & Employee Relations Division 1 9 8

Office of Civilian Manpower Management 

Department oif the Navy 

Washington, D. C. 20390

Re: Department of the Navy

Naval Ship Repair Facility 

Guam, Mariana Islands 

Case No. 73-436

Dear Mr. Spinks:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your objection to the election 

held in the above-named case on January 19, 1972.

Your contention that the small percentage of employees 

who cast ballots resulted in an unrepresentative election has been 

noted along with your suggestion that Section 202.17(c) be amended 

to set forth k minimum of 30 percent election participation rule. 

While it is true that a large percentage of the eligible voters 

did not vote in the election, I find that in the absence of a 

showing that the election was not properly publicized or that other 

unusual circumstances were present, Section 202.17(c) must be applied 

literally. Further, I cannot accept your recommendation that a 

specific percentage rule be set up by regulation to determine the 

representative character of an election.

Accordingly, the request that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal be reversed is denied, and the Regional Administrator is 

directed to have an appropriate certificate of representative issued.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

7/13/72

1 9 9

Mrs. Beatrice E. Smith 

1425 Conlyn Street 

Philadelphia, Pa. 19141

Re: General Services Administration 

Communications Division 

Philadelphia, Pa.

Case No. 20-3000 (CA)

Dear Mrs. Smith:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the 

above named case.

The evidence in the case file is confined to the issue 

raised in your formal racial discrimination complaint filed with the 

General Services Administration (OSA). I note that in your letter 

to GSA, January 25, 1972, you stated that the violation of Section 

19(a)(1) of the Order was "the agency delay in answering my 

correspondence and/or no response and agency failure to reply to 

my request for a hearing." There Is no evidence that this was as 

a result of your engaging in any activity on behalf of a labor 

organization or refraining from such activity, which are the rights 

assured by Executive Order 11491, Therefore, I find in agreement with 

the Acting Regional Administrator that the allegation raised in your 

complaint does not constitute an unfair labor practice within the 

meaning of Section 19(a)(1) of the Order. In view of this finding 

it is not necessary to consider the possible application of Section 

19(d) raised as a defense by the Activity.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

is denied.

Sincerely,

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

W. J. Uaery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

220
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Q F F J C C O F T H E A S 8 1 8 T A N T S E C R E T A R Y

W A S H I N G T O N

7 - r t - j i

Mr. Joseph D. Gleason 

National Vice President

American Federation of Government 200

Employees 

300 Main Street 

Orange, New Jersey 07050

Re: Internal Revenue Service 

Manhattan District 

New York, New York 

Case No. 30-4099

Dear Mr. Gleason:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint filed 

February 29, 1972 alleging that the Internal Revenue Service, 

Manhattan District (Activity) violated Section 19(a)(1) and

(3) of the Executive Order.

With respect to the letter of December 23, 1971 in which 

the Activity accused Local 15 of the AFGE of infringing "-— upon 

the spirit if not the substance of the regulations and decisions 

dealing with exclusive recognition, I have concluded that

it does not constitute a violation of the Executive Order. The 

letter was not served on any party other than Local 15, and 

contained no threats of penalty or reprisal which might have 

impeded future activity by Local 15, nor did the letter interfere 

with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights 

guaranteed by the Order.

With regard to the request for bulletin board space I have 

concluded that the refusal to comply was not in violation of the 

Executive Order. During the course of the campaign the Activity 

offered equal access to its employees to both labor organizations. 

The Activity refused bulletin board privileges for electioneering 

purposes to both labor organizations and there was no evidence 

submitted indicating that the NAIRE, the incumbent, had, in fact, 

used the bulletin boards for this purpose following the expiration 

of its agreement with the Activity on November 26, 1971.

-2-

Where various methods of contact with employees are available 

to the parties, as here, I do not regard the refusal of bulletin 

board space to them for electioneering purposes as a sufficient 

reason to conclude that a violation of the Order may have occurred.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

221
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 14, 1972

Mr. Irving I. Geller 

General Counsel

National Federation of Federal 201

Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: General Services Administration 

Region 3, Washington, D. C.

Case Nos. 22-2616 (RO) and 22-2617 (RO)

Dear Mr. Geller:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the election 

held in the above named case.

The first objection was that the General Services Administration (GSA) was unnecessarily restrictive toward the National Federation of 

Federal Employees (NFFE) by refusing to give permission to the NFFE to 

electioneer until election notices had been posted, and by refusing to 

honor verbal requests made by the NFFE to hold meetings with eligible 

employees during non-duty time. Regarding the first part of this objection there was no evidence presented by the NFFE to support its 

contention. The second part of this objection relates to an incident 

which occurred on December 6, 1971, one day before the election. The 

NFFE had been promised that on December 6, 1971, it would hold three 

meetings with employees during off-duty hours for the day and evening 

shifts. While one of the meetings did proceed as scheduled, two did 

not. At one meeting it appeared that the National Alliance of Postal 

and Federal Employees (NAPFE) was preparing to hold a meeting at the 

same time and place with the result that the NFFE refused to hold this 

meeting. With respect to the other meeting which did not proceed as 

planned, the Coast Guard was using the proposed meeting room and when 

a new room was eventually found, the NFFE was left with only ten minutes 

in which to conduct its program. The Activity did not grant the NAPFE 

permission to hold a meeting nor was there any evidence that the NAPFE 

had, in fact, held a meeting. Because, in the first instance there 

was no evidence submitted, and in the second instance there was a misunderstanding between the GSA and the NFFE with no evidence to indicate 

any preferential treatment accorded to the NAPFE by the Activity, or a 

lack of good faith on the part of the Activity, I find that the first 

objection has no merit.

- 2 -

The second objection contended that the Activity gave aid 

to the NAPFE by not curbing the on-the-job activities of the President 

of Local 202 of the NAPFE and of a woman alleged to be a NAPFE vicepresident. The case file revealed that the NAPFE president is not 

employed by the GSA and that the woman is not an official of the NAPFE. 

This objection was not supported by evidence and, therefore,, cannot 

be sustained.

The third objection asserted that the Activity had not fulfilled its duty to inform fully all eligible employees of the election 

by failing to post a notice of election in the Appraisers Store in 

Baltimore and by making no effort to explain verbally the purpose of 

the election to eligible employees. Notices of the election were 

posted in places where notices are usually posted and which were 

specified in the election agreement. It is not incumbent upon the 

Activity to inform its employees individually of the election details 

since the notice of election are designed to serve this purpose. The 

participating labor organizations are presumed also, to share in the 

responsibility of informing eligible voters of the election details. 

Consequently, the third objection has no merit.

The fourth objection states that adverse weather conditions 

and the unsafe location of the Appraisers Store and the Customs House 

prevented some employees from exercising their voting rights. The 

parties to the election executed the consent agreement, which included 

provisions for the date of the election and the location of the polling 

places. Further, the evidence did not indicate that the weather con~ 

ditions were so unusual or severe that the election was in any way 

disrupted. Accordingly, I find that the fourth objection has no merit.

The fifth objection avers that a NAPFE vice-president acting 

as an observer at the Woodlawn polling site engaged in lengthy discussions 

with eligible voters and gave the impression of electioneering at the 

polling place. The evidence supplied by the NFFE does not indicate 

any conduct on the part of the NAPFE observer which would have affected improperly the results of the election. Furthermore, the case file 

showed that the observer was not, in fact, a vice-president of the 

NAPFE. Therefore, the fifth objection is found to have no merit.

222
-3-

On December 28, you filed an additional objection regarding 

election materials distributed by the NAPFE. This objection, filed 

more than five days after the conduct of the election, was untimely 

and the Regional Administrator properly declined to consider it.

In view of the above, your request for review based on the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the election 

is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

7-18-72

Gordon P. Ramsey, Esq.

Rexford T. Brown, Esq. 0(10

Gadsby & Hannah

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Department of Navy

Naval Air Rework Facility 

Naval Air Station 

Norfolk, Virginia 

Case No. 22-2568 (RO)

Dear Sirs:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of Objections Nos. 3 and 4 

in the above named case, which were remanded earlier to the Regional 

Administrator for further investigation and the issuance of a supplementary report on his findings. The pertinent issue in Objections Nos. 

3 and 4 is the extension of the Lodge 39, International Association 

of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM) collective bargaining agreement with the Activity during the pendency of a representation 

petition filed by the National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-74 (NAGE).

You contend that the Acting Regional Administrator did not 

undertake a thorough investigation of the impact of the extension of 

the collective bargaining agreement on the election. You also argue 

that other factors, such as the terms of the agreement, should be taken 

into consideration.

As an additional contention you alleged that by extending 

the collective bargaining agreement with IAM, the Navy did not give 

NAGE the "equivalent treatment" which Executive Order 11491, as 

amended, demands. The "equivalent treatment" subject was considered 

in the case you cite in your request for review, U. S. Department of 

the Interior, Pacific Coast Region, Geological Survey Center, Menlo 

Park, California, A/SLMR No. 143.

Subsequent to the Assistant Regional Administrator’s Supplemental Report and Findings on Objections, dated April 10, 1972,

I had occasion to consider in another case the extension of a negotiated agreement between an activity and an incumbent labor organization when a valid question concerning representation was pending.

223
- 2 -

(Department of the Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, 

Florida, A/SLMR No. 155, dated May 8, 1972). In that decision X 

stated that I did not view the extension of an existing negotiated 

agreement between an incumbent labor organization and an agency, 

prior to a resolution of a rival claim, to constitute improper assistance to the incumbent or to encroach upon the rights of the employees, if such extension were agreed upon in writing during the 

term of the parties’ existing agreement.

Turning to the facts of the instant case, the investigative file shows that IAM requested extension of its collective bargaining agreement prior to its expiration date of July 23, 1971.

The Activity agreed with the request, and on June 10 the office of 

Civilian Manpower Management approved a 30 day extension until August 

22, 1971. Prior to August 22, another extension of 30 days was agreed 

to by IAM and the Activity, and the Office of Civilian Manpower Management approved the additional extension until September 22, 1971. 

Several more extensions were entered into, but these extensions are 

not material to the issue at hand, because they post-date the time 

for valid objections to the election held on August 26, 1971.

In my view, the issues in this case are controlled by my 

decision in the Department of Navy, Air Rework Facility case cited 

above. . Therefore, in regard to your first contention, I find that 

extension of the agreement in this case did not constitute interference with the election.

Your second contention relates to the applicability of 

my decision in the U. S. Department of the Interior case regarding 

"equivalent treatment." That case dealt with a petitioning union, 

and another union which had failed to intervene timely in the proceedings. On that basis, I found those two labor organizations 

could not be considered to have equivalent status.- However, A/SLMR 

No. 143 is clearly distinguishable from the subject case. Whereas 

at issue in A/SLMR No. 143 was the furnishing of customary and routine services and facilities (to labor organizations), the issue in 

the present case is whether the extension of the agreement between 

the Activity and the IAM constituted objectionable conduct affecting the election. Further, in regard to "equivalent treatment,"

I pointed out in A/SLMR No. 155, that while an agency is required 

to maintain its neutrality, it must at the same time permit the incumbent exclusive representative to administer its negotiated agreement while a representative question is pending.

Considering the above, I find the extension of the negotiated agreement between the Activity and the IAM during the pendency 

of a valid question concerning representation to be within the purview

- 3 -

of my decision in A/SLMR 155 and to be proper, since the parties 

did agree in writing during the terms of their existing agreement 

to extend the agreement. Therefore, I find in agreement with the 

Acting Regional Administrator, that the allegations in Objections 

Nos. 3 and 4 lack substance, and they are hereby overruled.

Accordingly, your request seeking reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator’s dismissal of Objections Nos. 3 and 4 

is denied and the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to have 

issued an appropriate certification of .representative.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

224
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 18, 1972

Mr. Bruce I. Waxman 

Assistant to the Staff Counsel 

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

400 First Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Re: Department of the Navy 

Naval Supply Center 

Norfolk, Virginia 

Case No. 22-2949 (CA)

Dear Mr. Waxman:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint in the above named 

case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 

11491.

I am of the opinion that the request for review raises issues 

which can be resolved best on the basis of record testimony. As I stated 

in Long Beach Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 154, an arbitration provision in 

negotiated agreement constitutes an invaluable tool for promoting labor 

relations harmony in the Federal service. If such arrangements are to 

be effective, however, they must be honored by the parties to the fullest 

extent possible. In the instant case there exists a reasonable basis 

for the complaint, in view of the Activity's refusal to take the matter 

to arbitration under Article XXV, Sections 1 and 2 of the agreement 

between the parties.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to reinstate 

the dismissed complaint and to issue promptly a notice of hearing in 

this proceeding.

Sincerely,

203

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 21, 1972

Gordon P. Ramsey, Esq. Of)A

Gadsby & Hannah

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, Virginia

Case No. 22-2669 (CA)

Dear Mr. Ramsey:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of portions of your complaint in the 

subject case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (3) of Executive 

Order 11491.

I find, in agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, that 

the facts relating to your "B" and "C" allegations do not form a reasonable 

basis for complaint. In my opinion, there is no evidence in the file to show 

that the Activity assisted, encouraged, or condoned any improper conduct, 

breach of Shipyard rules, or other actions in violation of Section 19(a)(3) 

of Executive Order 11491. It is my conclusion that the Activity, when it became aware that Metal Trades Council (MTC) national representatives and an 

acting supervisor were passing out MTC literature in work areas during duty 

time, took all corrective actions that reasonably could have been expected 

of it.

However, in agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, I find 

that allegation "A" of your complaint, which alleges that a supervisor threatened, coerced, and interfered with the rights of an employee representative of 

NAGE, raises a material issue of fact under Section 19(a)(1) of the Order which 

can be resolved best on the basis of record testimony.

I have previously directed a hearing in Case No. 46-1617 (RO) on 

that portion of your Objection No. 4 (Class II) which relates to the same 

subject matter as allegation "A" of your present complaint. In view of 

these circumstances and the fact that the same interested parties are involved in both the objection and complaint cases, the Regional Administrator 

is directed to consolidate the present case with Case No. 46-1617 (RO) for 

purposes of the hearing.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

225
ST 'V

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o i ’ t h u A s s i s t a n t S u c u u t a k y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

1 - 2 4 - f.

Neal H. Fine, Esq.

Assistant to the Staff Counsel 205

A m e r i c a n Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

400 First Street, N.W.

Re: Marine Corps Supply Center 

Barstow, California 

Case No. 72-2948(CA)

Dear Mr. Fine:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the above 

named case alleging violations of Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) of 

Executive Order 11491.

I am in agreement with the Regional Administrator that the 

complaint was filed untimely under the Rules and Regulations of 

the Assistant Secretary and must be dismissed for that reason.

A review of the investigative file reveals that the unfair labor 

practice charge was filed on September 9, 1971; that the final 

decision by the Activity on the charge was received by the President 

of Local 1482, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

(AFGE) on October 22, 1971, and that the complaint was filed on 

November 24, 1971.

The Regional Administrator dismissed the complaint as untimely 

filed by letter dated May 10, 1972, and a timely request for review 

was filed on June 9, 1972, after an extension of time had been granted.

Section 203.2 of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part,

"--That a complaint to the Assistant Secretary shall not be

considered timely unless filed---withln thirty (30) days of the 

receipt by the charging party of the final decision,---. Thus, 

under the facts herein, since November 21, 1971, fell on a Sunday 

the complaint must have been filed no later than November 22, 1972.

In view of the clear requirement of this section, your contention 

that Section 205.2 of the Regulations would apply to compel the 

addition of 3 days to the 30 days provided by Section 203.2 because the final decision of the Activity was transmitted to the 

President of the AFGE Local through the intra-base mail service, 

is rejected as being without merit.

2-

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

226
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

July 26, 1972

Mr. Joseph F. Girlando

National Representative O H C

American Federation of Federal Employees

300 Main Street

Orange, New Jersey 07050

Re: AFGE, AFL-CIO, District II of HUD 

Council of Locals 

HUD, Region II 

Case No. 30-3754

Dear Mr. Girlando:

Your letter of July 11, 1972, addressed to Mr. Hicks 

is acknowledged and your request to withdraw your request for review 

in the subject case has been considered and is hereby granted.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 26, 1972

Mr. S. B. Pranger

Director of Personnel CO*?

U. S. Department of Agriculture **

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D. C. 20205

Re: USDA, Northern Marketing and Nutrition 

Research Division 

Agricultural Research Service 

Peoria, Illinois *

Case No. 50-5165 (RO)

Dear Mr. Pranger:

Your letter of June 29, 1972, is acknowledged and your 

request to withdraw your request for review in the subject case is 

hereby granted.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 27, 1972

Hr. Herbert Cahn 

President

Local 476 208

National Federation of Federal Employees 

P. 0. Bbx 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Electronics Command 

Department of the Army 

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2811 EO

Dear Mr. Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint 

filed by Local 476, National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) 

in the above named case.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 19(a)(1), (2) 

and (6) of the Executive Order, in that a communication directed to 

employee Floyd B. Smith, dated August 24, 1971, the Activity improperly 

advised Smith that certain advice rendered Smith by NFFE was erroneous, 

refused to accept Smith's appeal with regard to a proposed adverse 

action, and directed Smith to contact the Activity for further information as to his rights in the matter. The complaint further alleges that 

the letter discouraged Smith from seeking further assistance from NFFE, 

that the Activity deliberately failed to serve NFFE with a copy of the 

letter, and thus failed to confer with NFFE and provide NFFE with an 

opportunity to respond to the Activity's contentions, and that the 

Activity deliberately confused the employee as to his rights in the 

matter.

Although the basis for the allegations of unfair labor 

practices is contained in the August 24, 1971 letter, the precomplaint 

charge was not filed with the Activity until on, or after, March 20,

1972. Because Section 203.2 of the Regulations requires that a precomplaint charge be filed with the party or parties against whom the 

charge is directed within six (6) months of the occurrence of the 

alleged unfair labor practice, the precomplaint charge herein was 

untimely filed.

- 2 -

In your request for review, you do not deny that the precomplaint charge was filed more than six months subsequent to the 

occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practice. Your contention is 

that your failure to file the charge within the six month period is 

attributable to the deliberate failure of the Activity to serve you 

with a copy of the August 24, 1971 letter, and that the charge was 

filed promptly after you became aware of the letter and its contents. 

Under these circumstances, you contend that Section 203.2 should be 

so construed as to mean that the six month period should not commence 

running until the charging party, has knowledge of the alleged unfair 

labor practice, and thus, in this case should result in a finding that 

NFFE filed timely its precomplaint charge with the Activity.

I must reject this contention, and, in accord, with the 

Regional Administrator's decision, find that the precomplaint charge 

was untimely filed. The pertinent language of Section 203.2 does not 

provide any reasonable basis to support the interpretation you urge 

in your request for review; to the contrary, the provisions of the 

Section clearly require that the precomplaint charge must be filed 

within six months of the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor 

practice. Further, in view of the fact that NFFE is not the certified 

bargaining agent for a unit of employees including Mr. Smith, and in 

the absence of official notification to the Activity that NFFE was 

representing Mr. Smith in his grievance with the Activity, there exists 

no obligation on the part of the Activity to negotiate with NFFE, or to 

inform NFFE of any communication between Mr. Smith and the Activity 

regarding the disposition of the grievance.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

228
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

7-27-72

Mr. Mark Flowers

President, Denver Center Chapter

Professional Air Traffic Controllers

Marine Engineers Beneficial Association Of)Q

AFL-CIO * **

Route 1, Box 125A 

Longmont, Colorado 80501

Re: Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center 

Longmont, Colorado 

Case No. 61-1492 (CA)

Dear Mr. Flowers:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of part of the complaint filed in 

the above named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and

(2) of Executive Order 11491.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find that 

Section 19(d) of the Executive Order, prior to its amendment by 

the dismissal letter dated March 29, 1972, apply to the present case. 

Section 19(d) provided, at the times material herein, that when the 

issue in a complaint of an alleged violation of Section 19(a)(1), (2) 

or (4) is subject to an established grievance or appeal procedure, 

that procedure is the exclusive procedure for resolving the complaint. 

Report No. 25 in part, provides that the Assistant Secretary will not 

proceed in a case when the Activity alleges a lack of jurisdiction 

under Section 19(d) of the Order. In the present case, the Activity 

asserted Section 19(d) as a defense to your complaint.

In view of the above conclusion, I do not find it necessary 

to consider any other arguments contained in your request for review.

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of part of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c u o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S u c r b t a r y 2 *

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 % ?

U.S. Ui-PARTMliNi OF LABOR

7 ' z 7 - 7 ^

Mr. N.T. Wolkomir 

President

National Federation of Federal 210

Unployees 

1737 H Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Department of the Army 

Vint Hill Farm* Station 

Warrenton, Virginia 

Case No. 22-2973 (CA)

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

X have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in 

the subject case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and

(2) of Executive Order 11491.

I find that your complaint was not filed timely with the 

Area Office. This finding follows from my conclusion that 

the Activity's September 21, 1971, letter to you was its 

final answer to your charges. In the letter, the respondent 

stated in pertinent part that,"...this command is exempt

from union activities.... Provisions do exist, however, to

validate and accommodate a grievance from any of our employees." 

These statements by the respondent foreclosed any further 

prospects of an informal settlement under Executive Order 11491.

In accordance with Section 203.2 of the Regulations, you 

had within thirty (30) days of receipt of the respondent's 

final decision to file your complaint. You did not file your 

complaint in the subject case until January 24, 1972, thereby 

failing to meet the requirements of Section 203.2. In view 

of the foregoing, I find it unnecessary to consider the merits 

of the case or the alternative ground upon which the Regional 

Administrator based his dismissal.

229
Moreover, assuming that the Activity's letter of September 

21, 1971, was: not to be considered as its final decision, 

the approval by the VHFS Commander on October 21, 1971, of 

the Assistant Inspector General's Report would have been the 

final decision. Taking either date the complaint was untimely, 

having been filed not within 30 days but more than three months 

after either September 21, 1971, or October 21, 1971.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is 

denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Uaery, Jr.

Aaslstant Secretary of Labor

7 - 2 - * ' 7 Z

Mr* Marvin C* Watson 

Business Manager 

Laborer's International Union 

of North America 

Public Service - Industrial Workers 211

Local 1054 

P, O* Box 365 

Dalevillo, Alabama 36322

Re: A m y and Air Forco Exchange Service 

Fort Ruckor, Alabama 

Caso No. 40-4164 (CA)

Doar Mr. Watson:

I have considorod carofully your roquoat for roviow of 

tho Roglonal Administrator's dismissal of your application for a 

decision on grlevabillty and arbitrability in the Instant caso*

Tho question before me is whether your complaint filed 

on April 5, 1972, was Intended to be filed as an unfair labor 

practico under Section 19 of the Order, or as an application for 

a doclsion on grlevabillty and arbitrability pursuant to Section 

13 of the amended Order* I have concluded that you intended the 

lattor because you so stated both in tho complaint filed on 

April 5, 1972, and in your April 20, 1972, letter to the Compliance 

Officer* Moroover, tho case file reveals you desired that tho 

issue in quostlon be resolved through tho use of tho contractual 

griovanco procedure. This emphasizes further your Intent to file 

for a dooision on griovablllty and arbitrability pursuant to 

Section 13 of tho Order*

Sootlon 13(o) of Exooutlvo Ordor 11610 states that,

"•••this uoction is not applicable to agroomonts ontorod into 

boforo tho offoctlve date of this Order*" Executive Ordor 11616 

bocamo effootivo on Novombor 26, 1971, whllo your agreement was 

entered into on July 1, 1971,

Bccause tho Acting Area Administrator in his letter of 

April 14, 1972, oallod your attention to the tlmellnoss question 

raised by Section 13(e) of the amended Order, I cannot agreo

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c b o p t u b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

230
with the contention in your request for review that you were not 

Informed of the problem.

Accordingly, tho request that the Regional Administrator' 

dismissal be reversed is donied*

Sincerely,

W. J* Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Seoretary of Labor

July 31, 1972

Hr. Thomas D. Miles 

President

National Association of Government q

Employees, Local R 1-34 

79A Broadmeadow Road 

Marlboro, Massachusetts 01752

Re: U. S. Army Natick Laboratories 

Natick, Massachusetts 

Case No. 31-5584 E.O.

Dear Mr. Miles:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrators dismissal of the complaint filed in the above 

named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive 

Order 11491.

. With respect to the issue of delay in issuing a decision on 

the grievance involved, which you allege is the responsibility of the 

Activity, I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

there is no merit to this allegation. I note, in this connection, 

that the Activity made reasonable efforts to expedite the completion 

of the transcript which was the major cause of the delay. Contrary 

to your contention in the request for review, I believe that the fact 

that the assigned steno-typist was also the local union secretary does 

have a bearing on the issue. For this reason it appears that your organization was aware of and acquiesced in the delay, but made no protest 

until after receiving an unfavorable decision on the grievance from the 

Commanding Officer.

With respect to the second issue, you contend in your request 

for review that the Regional Administrator ruled on the wrong issue 

when he referred to the issue of leave without pay rather than the 

issue of an alleged "falsified11 Grievance Examiner’s Report in dismissing that part of your complaint. In my view the basis for this allegation is ambiguous. It is not clear to me whether the unfair labor 

practice alleged was the manner in which the grievance was processed, 

or whether it was the matter of denial of annual leave that was grieved.

If the issue complained of is based directly on the grievance 

which was filed on July 30, 1971, then under Section 19(d) of Executive

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

231
-2-

Order 11491 prior to its amendment by Executive Order 11616, which did 

not become effective until November 24, 1971, the negotiated grievance 

procedure is the exclusive procedure for resolving the issue when, as 

here, the agency alleges a lack of jurisdiction under Section 19(d), 

according to my Report Number 25, a copy of which I have enclosed.

On the other hand, if the basis for the complaint was intended to be the substance of the grievance which was processed (i.e., the 

Grievance Examiner's conclusion was not justified .by the facts of the 

case), then no reasonable basis for the complaint exists. It is noted 

that the testimony of witnesses at. the grievance hearing was both conflicting and inconclusive. Morever, I note that there was no evidence 

presented by your organization to show either interference or discrimination by the Activity in the handling of the grievance. Therefore, 

as neither of these two possible approaches would establish a reasonable basis for the complaint, the dismissal of the complaint was correct.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c b o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N

7"3/' 72-

Mr . E. V. Curran

Director of Labor Relations, LR-1 o

Federal Aviation Administration ^

800 Indcpendenoe Avenue, S. W,

Washington, D. C. 20591

Bet Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 

Croat Lakes Region 

Case Kos. 03-4775 

63-4779 

63-4780

Dear Ur. Curran:

I have considered carofully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the throe CU 

petitions filed by the Great Lakes Regional Office, Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), in the above named oases, and I concur with 

Ills dismissal.

It Is olear that FAA's position Is that a major reorganization of its regional field structure has changed substantially, 

subsequent to certification, tho oharacter and scope of the present 

unit so as to render tho unit inappropriate. FAA's CU potitions, 

by B o o k i n g to achieve a redetormlnation of the unit, raise a question 

concerning representation with respeot to the oharacter a n d soopo 

of the unit.

.1 havo ruled rocontly in the matter of Hoadqunrtom,

U. S. Army Aviation Systems Command, A/SLMR No. 160, that under the 

Assistant Secretary's Regulations, the sole procoduro available 

to an agenoy or activity to enable it to raiso a question concerning 

representation lo an RA petition pursuant to Section 202.2(b) of the 

Regulations. An agency or activity may file an RA petition under 

either of the following circumstances: it has a good faith doubt of 

the appropriateness of the established unit because of organizational 

changes or it has a good faith doubt that the currently recognized 

or certified labor organization represents a majority in the unit. 

Such a petition must be filed In accordance with the usual timeliness 

rules unless the petitioner can establish, pursuant to Section 

202.3(c),\that unusual circumstances exist which will substantially 

affect the unit or the majority representation. Thereafter, in 

appropriate circumstances, and absent a disclaimer of interest by 

the inauabsnt lr.bor organization, the agency or activity may.obtain 

an elootion to aaoertain the employee*’ desire for representation 

in an appropriate unit.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

232
A CU petition, as I ruled in A/SLMR No. 160, is a vehicle by 

which parties may seek to illuminate and clarify, consistent with their 

intent, unit inclusions and exclusions after the basic question of 

representation has been resolved; it is not the proper vehicle to 

question the appropriateness of an employee bargaining unit.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the CU petitions is denied.

Sincerely,

W, J. Usery, Jr, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 31, 1972

Mr. N. T. Wolkomir, President O i A

National Federation of Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2565 (RO)

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed by 

Mr. Irving I. Geller on behalf of Local 476, National Federation of * 

Federal Employees. (NFFE)

The Regional Administrator's dismissal dated May 9, 1972, 

was based on the ground that the showing of interest submitted in 

support of the petition "was of questionable authenticity." My 

review of the investigative file leads me to conclude that the dismissal action was correct. Among other facts disclosed by the investigation which cause me to agree with the Regional Administrator that 

the showing of interest was questionable, are the following:

1. Officers of Local 476 obtained signatures of a 

substantial number of employees to petitions with 

confusing headings which caused many employees to 

believe that they were signing receipts for copies 

of a publication known as Federal Employees Almanac, 

raither than authorizing NFFE to represent them.

2. Purported signatures of a number of employees 

appeared on petition forms which were not the 

signatures of the named individuals.

Without counting names of questionable authenticity in the 

showing of interest submitted by NFFE, the showing was not sufficient 

to meet the 30% requirement specified by Section 202.2(a)(9) of the 

Regulations.
I regard the technique here used of obtaining signatures 

to petitions with unrelated subject headings to be inherently confusing and the resultant signatures, therefore, to be unreliable and 

unacceptable as evidence of interest.

In your request for review letter dated May 24, 1972, you 

state that the Regulations do not provide for an appeal in this matter 

but you urge that a review be granted "in light of our previous-and 

continuous charge of bias on the part of the New York Area and Regional Offices, ..." You further characterize the action of the 

Regional Administrator in this matter as "arbitrary and capricious and 

retaliatory."

In a recent letter addressed to you dated June 19, 1972, I 

considered the various items which had been alleged by NFFE to support 

the charges of favoritism to AFGE by -the New York and Newark offices 

of LMSAand of bias*against'NFFE by those offices and my own. I found 

those charges were not substantiated and that they were unwarranted in 

the light of the facts disclosed by a careful investigation.

In the present case nothing appears in the investigative file 

and nothing has been presented by you in the request for review letters 

of May 24, 1972, and June 7, 1972, or otherwise, which in my opinion, 

would support, or tend to support, your serious charge that the Regional 

Administrator’s action herein was "arbitrary and capricious and retaliatory." To the contrary, I find that his action was fully warranted in 

the light of the facts developed in the investigation of the showing 

of interest submitted by NFFE.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 31, 1972

Mr. Dennis Garrison 

National Vice President 

Fifth District

American Federation of Government c

Employees, AFL-CIO 

2109 Clinton Avenue West 

Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Re: U. S. Army Advanced Ballistic 

Missile Defense Agency 

Huntsville Office 

Huntsville, Alabama 

Case No. 40-3672 (RO)

Dear Mr. Garrison:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objection to election filed by 

Local 1858, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) in 

the above named case.

In the election, held on April 26, 1972, in a unit consisting of 

the non-professional employees of the Huntsville Office of the Activity, the 

following results were revealed by the official tally of ballots signed by 

the representative of the Area Administrator and by official observers of 

the Activity and AFGE:

Approximate number of eligible voters 37

Void ballots 0

Votes cast for AFGE, Local 1858 14

Votes cast against exclusive recognition 19

Valid votes counted 33

Challenged ballots 0 

Challenges are not sufficient in number 

to affect the results of the election.

A majority of the valid votes counted plus 

challenged ballets has not been cast for 

AFGE, LOCAL 1858, AFL-CIO.

On May 1, 1972, AFGE filed a document with the Area office which 

it labeled as a "protest" to the election based upon a contention that 

employees classification under the job title Program Analyst (Series 0345) 

were permitted to vote as "non-management." Correspondent with the Area 

Office disclosed that AFGE was, in fact, challenging the eligibility to 

vote of seven employees, classified as Program Analysts and Program Analyst

234
- 2 -

Officers. The employees whose eligibility was questioned by the "protest" 

filed May 1, voted in the election and their names were checked off the 

eligibility list, without challenge, by the observers for both parties.

Under the circumstances as above set out, I agree with conclusion 

of the Acting Regional Administrator that the objections had no merit. He 

found that the objections raised under Section 202.20 of the Regulations were 

challenges which cannot be entertained through the objections to election 

-procedure. I also agree with this conclusion, on his part in the absence of 

any evidence that there was improper conduct which affected the results of 

the election from the use of the agreed eligility list. I note further that 

no evidence was submitted by AFGE which would support its umtimely challenge 

to the eligibility of the seven employees referred to above although the 

Area Office made a painstaking investigation of the "protest" of the election, 

going beyond the necessities of the case.

In your request for review you concede in effect that the "Objections" filed were not objections but were in fact, a challenge when you say 

that "it is felt that the challenge to the eligibility of seven program 

analysts as voters in the above election is valid and timely." In the very 

nature of the election process it is necessary that a valid challenge be 

made at the time of the election and before the ballot is cast and commingled 

with the ballots of eligible voters. After the ballot is cast unchallenged, 

the privilege of challenging it is lost and cannot be revived, regardless 

of the merits of afterthoughts which may occur to the parties.

On June 9, 1972, you addressed a letter to me supplementing your 

request for review of June 6, 1972. Enclosed therewith were copies of 

several official documents of the Activity alleged to have been signed by 

one of the seven untimely challenged Program Analysts as "Acting Chief" of 

the Program Management Office of the Activity's Huntsville Office. Without 

regard to whether this was, or was not, probative evidence of the supervisory 

or ineligible status of the single employee involved, I point out to you 

that this evidence is untimely, not only because no challenge was voiced at 

the polls, but also because of my policy announced in Report No. 22 (copy 

enclosed) that new evidence in support of objections will not be considered 

when presented for the first time in a request for review.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the Acting 

Regional Administrators dismissal of your objections to the election is 

denied and the Regional Administrator is directed to cause a Certification 

of Results of Election to be issued by the Area Administrator.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

/ - 3 / - / A

Mr. Donald W. Jones 

President, Local 1395

American Federation of Government 216

Employees, AFL-CIO 

162 N. Clinton Street, Room 403 

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Re: Chicago Payment Center

Social Security Administration 

Chicago, Illinois 

Case No. 50-8236

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O ffx cs o f t h e As s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N

Dear Mr. Jones:

I have considered carefully your request for reviev of the Keglon.-il 

Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the above named case ~ 

alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 11491.

I find it unnecessary to make any determination regarding the merits 

of the case as the request for review is procedurally defective. In his 

dismissal letter dated July 3, 1972, the Regional Administrator stated 

that pursuant to Section 203.7(c) of the Regulations, a review of his 

decision could be had by filing a request for review which must be received by the Assistant Secretary by the close of business July 17, 1972.

Your request for review was dated and postmarked July 17, 1972, in 

Chicago, Illinois and was not received in my office until July 19, 1972. 

Therefore, it was filed untimely.

Accordingly, your request for review Is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary of Labor
7 - 3 /- 7X,

U .S. DEPARTM ENT O F LABOR

O w e * or t h k a s s i s t a n t s e c w e t a k y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Donald w. Jones 

President, Local 1395

American Federation of Government 04 *1

Employees, AFL-CIO 

162 N. Clinton Street, Room 403 

Chicago, Illinois 60606

!!•: Chicago Payment Center 

Social Security Administration 

Chicago, Illinois 

Case Ho. 50-3595 

Dear Kr« Jones:

I have considered.carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the above 

named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) of Executive Order 

11491.

I find It unnecessary to make any determination regarding 

the merits of the case as the request for review is procedurally 

defective, in his dismissal letter dated July 3, 1972, the Regional 

Administrator stated that pursuant to Section 203.7(c) of the 

Regulations, a review of his deolslon could be had by filing a request 

for review which must be received by the Assistant Secretary by the 

close of business July 17, 1972.

Your request for review was post-markod July 18, 1972, 

in Chicago, Illinois and was not received in my office until July 20, 

1972. Therefore, It was filed untimely.

Accordingly, your request for review is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J, Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 22, 1972

Mr. Hal Barrett, Jr.

Grand Lodge Representative q a

IAM and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO 

5330 S. Third Street, Room 132 

Louisville, Kentucky 40214

Re: Federal Labor Relations Council 

Case No. 41-2792 (CA-26)

Dear Mr. Barrett:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the above named 

case filed on behalf of Lodge 830, IAM and AW, alleging violations of 

Section 19(a)(6) of Executive Order 11491.

the Regional Administrator found that Section 19(a)(6) is 

not applicable to the Federal Labor Relations Council, the named 

Respondent, but is applicable only to an activity or agency in which 

a labor organization holds exclusive recognition for a unit of employees of the activity or agency and that under the circumstances here 

presented, the Respondent had no duty, to consult, confer, or negotiate 

with the Complainant.

I agree with the determination of the Regional Administrator. 

A reading of the Executive Order as a whole, and particularly Sections 

10 and 11, makes it clear that the unfair labor practicev.defined in 

Section 19(a)(6) can apply only to an agency management which is obligated to consult, confer or negotiate with an exclusive representative 

of employees of the agency in an appropriate unit.

Accordingly, your request for review is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

236
f - i V ' 7 2 -

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mrs* Marianna Tarter

President, Local 40 „ , 219

National Feaera'cion of Federal Employees 

2323 Kathryn, S. E. #195 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106

Re; PIS Indian Hospital

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Case No. 63-3347 <CA)

Dear Mrs* Tarter:

I have considered carefully your request for review oi 

the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

in tho above named case.

The Acting Regional Administrator, in his letter of 

June 26, 1972, advised you of your right, under Section 203.7(c) 

of the Regulations, to obtain a review of his action by filing 

a request for review with the undersigned* He further advised 

that the request must be received by me in Washington, D. C, 

by the close of business July 10, 1972.

Your request for review, dated July 7, 1972, was mailed 

at Albuquerque, New Mexico, postmarked July. 9, 1972. It 

arrived in my office subsequent to the July 10, 1972 due date 

and therefore, was filed untimely*

Accordingly, your request for review cannot be considered on its merits and is denied*

Sincerely,

W, J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

f'S]/- 2—

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S b c r b t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. William B. Peer p p n

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen & Peer 

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Fort Worth Air Route 

Traffic Control Center 

Case No. 63-2991(CA)

Dear Mr. Peer:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the above 

named case alleging violations of Sections 19(a)(1) and (3) of 

Executive Order 11491.

I agree with the Regional Administrator's dismissal. My 

recent decision in the matter of Federal Aviation Administration, 

Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center, A/SLMR No. 194, 

based on similar facts, is controlling in this case. In adopting 

the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Chief Hearing 

Examiner in that case I noted that a contrary result would not be 

required because a petition signed by a majority of unit employees 

was submitted to the Activity after a negotiated agreement had been 

signed by the Activity and the Respondent union, but before its 

approval at a higher agency level. The present case presents an 

even more compelling reason for dismissal in that the petition 

signed by 129 employees asserting that they had not authorized 

NAQE/FASTA to represent them represented substantially less than 

a majority of the unit employees.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied. ^

Sincerely,

w. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

237
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 12, 1972

Mr. N. T. Wolkemir

President 221

National Federation of Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W. .

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: PHS Indian Hospital

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Case No. 63-3347 (CA)

Dear Mr. Wolkemir:

Your letter of August 31, 1972, regarding the above named 

case has been received and considered carefully. You ask that I 

reconsider my ruling of August 24, 1972, in which I sustained the 

dismissal of the case by the Acting Regional Administrator. In 

my ruling I declined to review the dismissal on the merits because 

the request for review was received untimely.

Regarding the timeliness provisions of the regulations, it 

has been my consistant policy to require uniform compliance with 

those requirements by all parties and I consider that I am bound 

by these requirements no less than are the parties. You propose 

that Section 205.7, which provides that time limits may be altered 

by the Assistant Secretary where strict adherence will work 

surprise, injustice or interference with the proper effectuation 

of Executive Order, be applied so as to provide an exception to 

the timeliness requirements in this particular case.

However, Section 205.7 does not apply to cases like the 

present one. It applies only to unusual or exceptional instances 

where strict application of the timeliness provisions would result in 

surprise, injustice or interference with proper implementation of the 

Order. The facts which were before me in this matter do not fall into 

the exceptional category contemplated by Section 205.7. Here, Mrs. 

Tarter simply posted her request for review too late to assure receipt 

by me before the deadline defined in the regulations and specified by 

the Acting Regional Administrator in his dismissal letter.

Under these circumstances I must adhere to my original decision 

to uphold the dismissal of the Acting Regional Administrator.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

238
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

SEP 2 9 1972

Mr. Charles W. Huffaker 

President, Local 665

American Federation of Government 222

Employees, AFL-CIO 

Veterans Administration Hospital 

Amarillo, Texas 79106

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Amarillo, Texas 

Case No. 63-2176 RO

Dear Mr. Huffaker:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the objections to the rerun 

election in this case filed by Local 665, American Federation of 

Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE).

Your objections characterized by you as a "formal protest" 

were aB follows:

"l. Due the fact that we were unable to cast absentee

ballots we feel that we lost at least ten (10) votes.

"2, Section 10, para* d of E.O. 11491 states that all 

elections shall be conducted under the supervision 

of the Assistant Secretary, or persons designated by 

him, and shall be by secret ballot. Each employee 

eligible to vote shall be provided the opportunity 

to choose the labor organization he wishes to represent * 

him, from among those on the ballot, or ’No union.’

"Therefore, it is our conviction that not all members or 

employees were afforded the proper opportunity to vote 

because of the lack of absentee balloting."

Investigation of the objections disclosed that the election 

conducted on June 21, 1972, was a rerun of an earlier election 

conducted on September 30, 1970, which has been set aside because 

of objections to that election found to be meritorious. The Consent 

Election Agreement which preceded the September 30, 1970, election 

provided for an absentee ballot procedure which was too broad in its

- 2 -

scope. Accordingly, pursuant to the direction for a rerun election, 

the Area Administrator directed that a new Consent Election be 

negotiated. In a letter dated May 9, 1572, asking the parties to 

meet and negotiate an agreement -or the rerun election, the Area 

Administrator properly instructed the parties that the absentee ballot 

procedure should be only utilized for those employees who, on the 

date of the election are on travel status away from the home station 

and for those employees whose work is at a distant work station.

This instruction was consistent with the absentee ballot procedure 

contained in The Procedural Guide for Conduct, of Elections,

paragraph 4.E,

At the conference between tho parties, the Activity reported 

that there were no eligible voters who were assigned to a distant 

work station, and that it did not anticipate that any eligible voters 

would be in travel status on tho date of the election. Consequently, 

the Consent Election Agreement signed by all the parties, and approved 

by the Area Administrator on May 20, 1972, did not provide for tho 

use of ail absentee ballot. Further, the Official Notice to employees 

made no mention of absentee ballots. I note that all parties were 

aware of the fact that the absentee ballot procedure was not to be 

available for the rerun election, and that no eligible voters were 

misled concerning the availability of absentee ballots. Therefore,

I find that the absence of an absentee ballot procedure in the rerun 

election was not improper.

Under the circumstances disclosed, I conclude, in agreement 

with the Regional Administrator that the objections are without merit.

In your request for review, you also assert, for the first 

time, that your organization was prejudiced by the fact that the 

rerun election was held in the face of a petition seeking a nationwide 

unit of employees of tho Veterans Administration Hospitals, I do not 

consider allegations raised for the first time in a request for review. 

Therefore, I cannot consider this new allegation.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the rerun 

election is denied, and the Regional Administrator is directed to 

cause an appropriate Certification of Representative to be issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr,

Assistant Secretary of Labor

239
O f f i c e o ? t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W a s h i n g t o n , d .c . 20210

.5. OF L A o C il

Mr. N. T. Wolkomir

President O O 'l

National Federation of Federal Employees 

1737 H Street,. N. W.

Washington, D. C* 20006

Re: Naval Air Engineering Center 

U„ S0 Naval Air Base 

Philadelphia, Pa®

Case No* 20-3106

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

I have considered carefully your request to review the 

action of the Area Administrator denying your request to withdraw 

the Certification of Representative issued to the Metal Trades 

Council of Philadelphia in the above named case.

Your request is bssed on the fact that objections to 

the conduct of the election in this case were filed by the National 

Office of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) and, 

therefore, that the President of Local 772 of NFFE had no authority 

to request the Regional Administrator to withdraw the objections.

You also state that the NFFE National Office was not served a 

copy of .the Regional Administrator's approval of the withdrawal 

request.

The Petitioner herein was Local 772 of NFFE, which was so 

listed and identified on the petition form itself. The President 

of Local 772, Mr. Ralph Barbiere, represented the Petitioner at 

the pre-election conference and signed the consent election agreement. 

When objections to the election were submitted by an attorney in 

your National Office it was logicul for the Area Administrator to 

conclude, and I so find, that the objections were filed on behalf of 

Local 772. Therefore, it was reasonable for the Area Administrator 

to make contact with the Local President concerning the objections© 

When the Regional Administrator approved the request to withdraw 

the objections filed by the Local President, service of a copy of 

the letter of approval on the Local President, under the circumstances 

described above, constituted notice to NFFE.

- 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the Area Administrator1s action denying your request to rescind 

the Certification of Representative is denied.

Sincerely,

W. Jo Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

240
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 29, 1972

Mr. Arthur Knowles

President m 224

Federal Employees Metal Trades Council 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801

Re: U. S. Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 

Case No. 31-6057 E.O.

Dear Mr. Knowles:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint in the above 

named case alleging violations of Sections 19(a)(1) and (2) of 

Executive Order 11491.

The basis of your complaint appears to be that the Activity 

violated Sections 19(a)(1) and (2) by assigning employees temporary 

duty at the U. S. Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina.

However, the investigation failed to disclose any basis for a 1

finding that the action of the Activity was for the purpose of 

encouraging or discouraging membership in your organization, or any 

other labor organization. Further, there is no basis for a finding 

that selection of employees for such assignment was predicated upon 

their union membership, or lack thereof, or for any other unlawful 

consideration. Accordingly, I agree with the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the complaint.

You allege that the action of the Activity in assigning temporary 

duty to personnel against their wishes is in violation of the collective 

bargaining agreement between the Activity and your organization. 

Differences over interpretation of the existing agreement should be 

referred to the grievance-arbitration provisions of the agreement. 

Articles XXXVI and XXXVII of the agreement provide the machinery for 

resolution of such difference.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O ffic k op t h r A s s i s t a n t S k c r r t a r y 

WASfMNf/fON. Jj t

OCT 13 m

William B. Peer, Esq.

Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen & Peer 

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Boston Air Route Traffic Control 

Center 

Nashua, New Hampshire

Case No. 31-6076

Dear Mr. Peer:

I have considered carefully your Motion to Compel Processing 

of Representation Petition in the above-named case.

I have been advised administratively by the New York 

Regional Administrator that he Instructed the Boston Area Administrator to defer processing of the representation petition in the 

subject case pending resolution of the Issues in Case No. 31-5570 

Involving an unfair labor practice complaint filed against the 

Activity by Local Rl-71, National Association of Government Employees 

(NAGE), Further, I an advised administratively that the unfair 

labor practice complaint alleges that the Activity violated Sections 

19(a)(1), (3), (5) and (6) of the Order and that a hearing is 

scheduled to commence on October 25, 1972.

As you correctly point out in your Motion, I have had 

occasion recently in Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 

Transportation, A/SLMR No. 173, to pass upon whether a negotiated 

agreement between the Activity and the NAGE was in existence at the 

Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center at the time of the filing 

of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organizations (PATCO) 

petition for a nationwide unit of Air Traffic Control Specialists.

I found that under the circumstances, the negotiated agreement 

between the Activity and the NAGE had expired prior to the filing 

of the PATCO's nationwide petition and that, therefore, no agreement 

bar existed. On the basis of this finding, you contend that the 

issues underlying the NAGE's complaint in Case No. 31-5570 have been 

litigated and adjudicated and that deferral of the representation 

case pending the outcome of the unfair labor practice proceeding 

is unwarranted. Under the circumstances herein, I disagree.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

241
- 2

Thus, ao noted above, the NAGE's unfair labor practice complaint 

alleges violations of Sections 10(a)(1), (3), (5) and (6) of the 

Order, I am advised administratively that the issues presented 

Involve, among other things, questions related to alleged Improper 

assistance to the PATCO by the Activity, alleged Improper limitations 

by the Activity on campaigning, and an alleged Improper withdraval 

of recognition. These Issues do not appear to have been rendered 

moot by the decision in A/SLMR No. 173. In view of the existence 

of such questions In Case No. 31*5570, I find, In agreement with the 

Regional Administrator, that sound administrative practice compels 

the withholding of the processing of the representation petition 

in the subject case until final disposition of the unfair labor 

practice case is accomplished.

Accordingly, your Motion to Compel Processing of Representation 

Petition Is denied.

Sincerely,

w. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f p i c b o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

0 c r z 5 m

Mr. Jack Walker 

Vice President

Social Security Local No. 1395 

American Federation of Government 

Employees 

165 N. Canal Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Re: Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare 

Social Security Administration 

Chicago Payment Center 

Case No-. 50-5986

Dear Mr. Walker:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint in the above 

named case.

The Regional Administrator's decision, dated September 21, 

1972, advised the Complainant of the right, under Section 203.7(c) 

of the Regulations, to obtain a review of his action by filing a 

request for review with the undersigned. He further advised that 

the request must be received by me in Washington, D. C. by the close 

of business October 4, 1972,

Tour letter requesting a review of the Regional Administrator's decision, dated October 2, 1972, was mailed at Chicago, 

Illinois, postmarked October 3, 1972. It arrived In my office 

subsequent to the October 4, 1972 due date and therefore, was filed 

untimely.

Accordingly, your request for review cannot be considered 

on its merits, and it Is hereby denied.

Sincerely,

W, J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

242
O p t i c s o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OCT 3 I 1972!

Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President

Local 476 227

National Federation of Federal Employees 

P. 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: Department of the Army

U. S. Army Communications 

Sys tems 

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2580 (R0)

Dear Mr. Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the 

runoff election held in the above-named case on June 1, 1972.

Your request for review asserts that the Regional Administrator' s decision was arbitrary and capricious for the following 

stated reasons:

1. That the decision "emasculated" the record by failing to 

mention two-thirds of the supporting evidence;

2. That references are made to material received from the 

Intervenor (AFGE) but which was not served on NFFE;

3. That NFFE's motion to refer the matter to a Hearing 

Examiner was not ruled on;

4. That no contact with NFFE was made by LMSA during the 

investigation of the objections;

5. That NFFE was denied due process because the deadline 

date for appeal to the Assistant Secretary was set at 

August 24, 1972, although the President of the NFFE 

Local was incapacitated by recent surgery;

6. That the issue of forgery by AFGE in Case No. 32-2572 

raised by Objection No. 10 was, avoided by the Regional 

Administrator in his decision.

- 2 -

An examination of the case leads me to conclude that the 

decision of the Regional Administrator was neither arbitrary nor 

capricious as you allege. I reach this result for the following 

reasons:

1. Although you contend that the Regional Administrator's 

decision did not mention "two thirds of the supporting 

evidence", your claim is ambiguous in that you failed 

to specify what evidence was ignored. In this connection, the mere fact that a part of the material supplied 

was not referred to in the decision doc's not mean that 

it was not given full consideration.

2. Your contention that documents submitted by AFGE, but not 

served on NFFE, were considered by the Regional Administrator in reaching his decision is rejected. You have 

failed to identify such documents, and have not shown 

their relevance, if any, to this matter.

3. Your complaint that the Regional Administrator did not 

rule on your motion to refer the case to a Hearing 

Examiner is rejected. In overruling the objections

in their entirety the Regional Administrator, in effect, 

denied your motion. The failure to rule specifically 

on the motion was, therefore, not prejudicial to NFFE.

4. Your contention that the Regional Administrator should be 

reversed because the objecting party was not interviewed 

during the investigation is rejected because no showing 

was made that such an interview or interviews would have 

been necessary to a proper evaluation of the evidence.

5. Your statement that an "unreasonable" limitation was 

placed on the right to appeal to the Assistant Secretary 

because of the Local President's incapacitation also is 

rejected, as the file shows that no request for an 

extension of time was requested for filing of the appeal.

6. Your contention that the Regional Administrator should be 

overruled because he "avoided the issue of forgery by 

AFGE" in Case No. 32-2572 is rejected. In A/SLMR No. 216, 

speaking of this issue, I said as follows:

243
"I am both shocked and deeply concerned by the 

discreditable conduct and apparent disregard of 

the purposes and policies of the Executive Order 

displayed by both the AFGE and the NFFE at Fort 

Monmouth in connection with their respective 

attempts to establish an adequate showing of 

interest. The National Office officials of both 

labor organizations should take immediate steps 

to ensure that such improper conduct will not be 

repeated in future cases. Further, if this situation is repeated, I will not hesitatvto make the 

procedures of the Assistant Secretary unavailable 

to the parties concerned."

In summary, I conclude that the disposition made by the Regional 

Administrator of the case was proper. Accordingly, your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your objections to the runoff election is denied and the Regional 

Administrator, is directed to cause a Certification of Representative 

to be issued.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

, 7 - / - 7 . X

u.o. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic b o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S b c r b t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr. Robert C. Nogler 

National Representative 

Eleventh District

American Federation of Government 2 2 8

>Employees 

610 Southwest Broadway 

Portland, Oregon 97205

Re: Portland Area Office, HUD 

Portland, Oregon 

Case No. 71-1770

Dear Mr. Nogler:

I have considered carefully your request for review of 

the Regional Administrator's Report and Ruling on Objections 

to Runoff Election In the above named case.

The request for review raises facts which, it appears, 

the Regional Administrator was not cognizant of at the tine he 

issued his Report and Ruling in the matter.

Accordingly, I am remanding the case to the Regional 

Administrator for further consideration.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

244
// - I ' 1 9 -

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f t ic b o f T iiu A ss is t a n t Ss c r b t a &y

WASHINGTON, D.C, 20210

Mr. Robert Williams 

Secre tary-Treasurer 

The Social Service and Poverty

Workers' Union of the Greater St. Louis O O Q

Area

3333 North Union Boulevard 

St. Louis, Missouri 63115

Re: Human Development Corporation 

of Metropolitan St. Louis 

Case No. 62-3268 (RO)

Dear Mr. Williams:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition in the above 

named case for certain employees of the Human Development Corporation 

of Metropolitan St. Louis (Corporation).

In agreement with the findings of the Regional Administrator, 

I find that employees of the Corporation are not "employees" as 

defined in Executive Order 11491, as amended. The evidence establishes that the Corporation is a non-profit enterprise organized 

under the laws of the State of Missouri, and empowered to act only 

within its borders. The main objective of the Corporation is the 

assistance and relief of poor people within the metropolitan area 

of St. Louis. In furtherance of this objective, the Corporation 

receives grants of Federal funds from various Federal Agencies. The 

only Federal control exercised over the activities of the Corporation 

is in connection with the disbursement and utilization of these funds

While the Corporation receives Federal funds which are 

utilized in the operation of the various programs instituted and 

operated by the Corporation, it is clear that the Corporation is 

free to solicit funds, and presently receives funds, from other 

sources for the operation of its programs. With regard to the operations of the Corporation which are funded from sources other than 

the Federal Government, the Federal Government exercises no control 

whatever.

- 2 -

Under these circumstances, contrary to the arguments contained 

in your request for review, I conclude that the Corporation is neither 

a government corporation, nor a government controlled corporation and, 

therefore, does not meet the definition of "Agency" as set forth in 

Section 2(a) of the Executive Order. I further find that under these 

circumstances employees of the Corporation are not "Employees" within 

the meaning of that term set forth in Section 2(b) of the Executive 

Order.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

245
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O m c c o p t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

W O V 2 1972

Mr. Stuart H. Clarke 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Personnel and Training 

Office of Personnel and Training O'iC

Department of Health, Education.and Welfare 

330 Independence Avenue, S. W.

Washington, D. C. 20201

Re: Social Security Administration 

Lawton, Oklahoma 

Case No. 63-3904 (DR)

Dear Mr. Clarke:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed by 

Miss Dana B. Gilbreath in the above named case, seeking decertification of National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 273, as the 

exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the 

Activity.

I find it unnecessary to make any determination regarding 

the merits of the case as the request for review is procedurally 

defective. In his dismissal letter dated August 10, 1972, the 

Regional Administrator stated that a review of his decision could 

be had by filing a request for review with the Assistant Secretary 

by the close of business, August 23, 1972. I note that in addition 

to serving the Activity in Lawton, Oklahoma, the Regional Administrator also served copies of the dismissal letter on the Agency 

Regional Office in Dallas, Texas, and, on August 14, 1972, upon the 

Office of the Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 

However, your telegram seeking additional time within which to file 

your request for review was dated August 29, 1972, and your request 

for review was dated August 31, 1972, both of which wore received 

in my Office simultaneously on August 31, 1972. Therefore, both 

the request for additional time, and the request for review were 

filed untimely.

Moreover, Section 202.6(d) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations, governing the filing of requests for review of a 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of a petition, does not contemplate 

the filing of a request for review by any party other than the

- 2 -

petitioner. Thus, the Section reads, In pertinent part: "The 

petitioner may obtain a review of such action by filing a request 

for review with the Assistant Secretary within ten (10) days of service 

of the notice of dismissal.” (emphasis added) In this instance, 

therefore, the request for review could have been filed only by 

Miss Gilbreath or an agent designated by her and not by the Activity 

nor by the Agency.

In view of the foregoing, your request for review is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

246
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A G H I N G T O N

Mr. Gary B. Landsman 

Assistant to Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 2 3 1

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, 0. C. 20005

He: Department of Defense

Defense Contracts Administration 

Services District 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

Case No. 50-8229

Dear Mr. Landsman:

I have considered carcfully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging 

violations of Sections 19(a)(1), (5) and (6) of the Executive Order, 

as amended, in the above named case.

Your complaint alleges that the Activity violated the 

Executive Order, in that by letter dated November 16, 1971, ar.d 

at a meeting on December 2, 1971, the Activity informed the AFGE 

that effective immediately certain individuals previously included 

in the bargaining unit for which the American Federation of 

Government Employees (AFGE), was the recognized bargaining a;;ont, 

would be excluded from the unit, by reason of their managerial or 

confidential duties. Under all the circumstances disclosed by 

the investigation herein, I conclude, in agreement with the 

Regional Administrator, that there is insufficient basis upon 

which to issue a notice of hearing.

With regard to the 19(a) (5) and (6) allegations, while 

the Activity, prior to consulting with tho union, did advise the 

AFGE in its November 16, 1971, letter that the individuals in 

question were being excluded from the unit, it thereafter met 

and conferred several times with the union regarding the matter.

In this respect, the Activity made substantial concessions from 

its original position. Under these circumstances, I believe the 

Activity did not fail to accord appropriate recognition, and that 

it met its obligation to consult, confer and negotiate with the 

exclusive representative.

Regarding the 19(a)(1) allegation, the file fails to 

disclose evidence of any action by the Activity which could be 

construed as interfering with, restraining or coercing employees 

in the exercise of their rights under the Order.

Finally, I wish to point out to both parties that the 

proper vehicle for resolving disputes of this nature is the 

processing of a petition for clarification o^ the urit, rather 

than the filing of an unfair labor practice charge and complaint. 

Such a petition, which may be filed by either party, provides an 

effective and expeditious way of resolving such disputes.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

247
O i f i c i : o f T u n A s s i s t a n t S i x u h t a r y

W a s h in g t o n ', d c. : 02m

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. F. R. Brown 

Acting Director 

Department of the Army 

Waterways Experiment Station 

i Corps of Engineers 

P. 0. Box 631

Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180

Re: Department of the Army

Waterways Experiment Station 

Vicksburg, Mississippi 

Case No. 41-2788 (RO)

Dear Mr. Brown:

Your request for review of the Regional Administrator's 

action in setting aside the runoff election conducted on June 22,

1972, has been considered carefully.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I am of the 

opinion that the events which occurred under the so-called "side 

agreement" between the parties providing for the "absentee ballot" 

procedure were improper. There was an agreement between the parties 

which provided, among other arrangements, that the runoff election 

would be conducted on June 22. This agreement was approved by the 

Area Administrator. The subsequent agreement between the parties, 

providing for limited voting on June 21, had the effect of materially 

altering the date, time and place specified by the original agreement.

The official notice of election was not altered to conform 

with this second agreement, nor were other eligible employees given 

an opportunity to vote on June 21. I am concerned also that the.17 

employees who voted under this procedure did so without the usual 

safeguards required to maintain secrecy of the ballot. No representatives of the Area Administrator or any election observers were 

present.

NO V 2 .3 >972

232

- 2 -

It is expected that in the future any such material changes 

in the basic agreement under which an election is conducted will be 

put into effect only after written approval of the Area Administrator 

has been given and after appropriate notice is given to all eligible 

employees.

Further, 1 do not accepc the argument in the Request for 

Review that I lack the power to look into events which bring into 

question the propriety of elections conducted under my supervision.

Because the 17 employees voting on June 21 did so contrary to 

the officially approved election agreement between the parties and the 

official notice of election, I have concluded that their ballots should 

not be counted. However, these 17 votes cannot affect the results of 

the election. In view of this, I have decided to overrule the Regional 

Administrator’s action setting aside the election.

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is hereby directed to 

issue an appropriate Certification of Results of the election.

Sincerely yours,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

248
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

NOV 2 6 ,g72

Mr. Michael J. Massimlno

President, Local 1340 O'i'i

National Federation of Federal Employees C O O

P. 0. Box 86 

Pomona, New Jersey 08240

Re: National Aviation Facility 

Experimental Center 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Department of Transportation 

Case No. 32-2871

Dear Mr. Massimino:

Tbss undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of the complaint filed in the above named case alleging violations 

of Section 19(a)(5) and (6) of Executive Order 11491,

The case file reveals that the charge filed with the Activity 

pursuant to Section 203.2 of the Regulations of the Assistant 

Secretary on May 14, 1972, referred to three (3) specific incidents 

which the union considered to be examples of violations of the 

provisions of Executive Order 11491. These were described as formal 

discussions with certain identified employees concerning grievance 

actions, personnel policies and practices or other matters affecting 

general working conditions. The violations alleged were charged 

to be that 'NFFE Local 1340 was not given the opportunity to be 

represented at these or many other formal discussions." After 

Informal discussion with the union of each of these incidents 

failed to resolve these matters, the Activity sent three individual 

letters, datcf' June 9, 1972, to the union responding to each of the 

incidents set forth in tho charging lettor. Tho Regional Administrator viewed theso letters as the final decision of the Activity 

on the charge and I agree with his conclusion. Because the complaint 

was not filed until July 21, 1972, the Regional Administrator dis- 

•uissad tha complaint as untimely under Section 203.2 which states, 

in part, that a complaint shall not be considered timely unless 

filed within 30 days of the receipt by the charging party of a 

final decision.

- 2 -

In your request for review, you allege that the Activity 

did not respond to your "specific charges, only to examples 

illustrating the charges.” There is no evidence that any utters 

other than the three incidents specified in the charging letter 

of May 14, 1972, were specifically brought to the attention of 

the Activity as required by Section 203.2. My policy with respect 

to compliance with the requirements of Section 203.2 is sat out 

in Report No. 33 (copy enclosed) which states that the charge 

should contain a clear and concise statement of the facts, lncludlag 

the time and place of occurrence of particular acts, in order that 

the parties may be in a position to resolve informally the alleged 

unfair labor practice.

Under all the circumstances, I agree with the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in this case as being 

untimely filed, and therefore, find It unnecessary to consider the 

merits of the case.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

249
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r t 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

H - 3 0 - j X s

Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President, Local 476

National Federation of Federal O'iA

Employees 

P. 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2851

Dear Mr. Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging a 

violation of Section 19(a)(1) of the Executive Order.

X have concluded that a reasonable basis for the complaint 

exists and, accordingly, it should be reinstated and a notice of 

hearing should be issued by the Regional Administrator.

Among the issues which should be explored at the hearing 

are the following:

1. Do the facts and circumstances disclosed constitute 

a violation of Section 19(a)(1) of the Executive Order?

2. What is the correct application of the holding in 

A/SLMR No. 139 to the facts of the present case?

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O m cs o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a » t 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Richard C. Wells 

Labor Relations Advisor 

Regional Office of Civilian

Manpower Management 0 0 c

Department of the Navy 

760 Market Street, Suite 836 

San Francisco, California 94102

Re: U. S. Naval Postgraduate School 

Monterey, California 

Case No. 70-2426

Dear Mr. Wells:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Ruling on Challenged Ballots 

in the above named case.

The evidence in the investigative file does not support 

your contention that the unique role performed by fire captains 

at the Naval Postgraduate School distinguishes these positions 

from other such positions which I have considered previously. The 

distinguishing characteristics are alleged to be (1) that no intermediate level of supervision between the fire captains and the fire 

chief (i.e., Assistant Chief) exists, and (2) that the fire captains 

function as shift supervisors and one is designated each calendar 

quarter to assume the duties of Acting Chief in the absence of the 

Chief.

While the evidence indicates that the fire captains have 

functions and responsibilities that set them apart from other 

firefighters, I view the. authority vested in the captains to be of 

a routine or clerical nature not requiring the use of independent 

judgment. The contention that there is no level of supervision 

between the chief and the captains is immaterial where the captains 

do not in fact have supervisory duties and responsibilities. Further, 

the contention that one fire captain is designated each calendar 

quarter to assume the duties of Acting Chief in the absence of the

250
- 2 -

Chief is rebutted by other evidence which indicates that only the 

senior fire captain serves in that position. In any event, the 

responsibilities assumed by the Acting Chief are largely ministerial 

since the Chief is required to answer every alarm even when he is 

off duty.

Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

jl find that the employees classified as fire captains do not possess 

the indicia of supervisory status as provided in Section 2(c) of 

the Executive Order and, therefore, they should be included in any 

unit found appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition.

Your request that the Regional Administrator's decision be 

overruled and the challenged ballot in question not be opened and 

counted, is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

m 2

Mr, Raymond J. Malloy 

Associate Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 236

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: National Atmospheric and 

Oceanic Administration 

National Weather Service 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-3589 (RO)

Dear Mr# Malloy;

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator1s dismissal of the intervention of 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) in the 

above named case*

The Acting Regional Administrator based his dismissal on 

the ground that the request to intervene was supported by a showing 

of interest from employees not included in the unit sought by the 

Petitioner, the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE).

Your request for review was received timely by the undersigned 

on October 11, 1972. Three days earlier, on October 8, 1972, NAGE 

filed a request to withdraw its petition in the subject case. This 

request was approved by the Regional Administrator on October 19,

1972, and the case was closed on October 20, 1972. Your request for 

review of the dismissal of your intervention thus became moot.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Acting Regional 

Administrator*s dismissal of your intervention is hereby denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

December 13, 1972

Mr. Dennis Garrison

National Vice President

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO O'VJ

2109 West Clinton Avenue 

Room 314

Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Montgomery, Alabama 

Case No. 40-4280 (CA)

Dear Mr. Garrison:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint against the Activity 

alleging violation of Section 19(a)(6) of the Executive Order.

In the request for review, you contend that the Activity’s conduct in "first agreeing to the contents of two proposed contractual 

articles and initialing and dating those articles ... and then at a 

later date deciding they were not acceptable is clearly an example of 

bad faith bargaining." In addition, you state that this was a violation 

of a pre-negotiation Memorandum of Understanding which provided that 

"Upon reaching agreement of each point or subpoint, the Chief Negotiators shall signify such agreement by initialing and dating the agreed 

upon item. This shall signify the agreement is firm, subject to both 

approvals required in Sec. II 2 below." The request for review is based 

upon the action of the Activity in changing its position on the two provisions of the agreement being negotiated, on the ground that the subject 

matter of the two proposed contractual articles in question was nonnegotiable.

No evidence has been presented which would indicate that such 

reversal of position was in bad faith for the purpose of frustrating 

collective bargaining, even though it may have been in violation of the 

parties' pre-negotiation agreement. For this reason, I agree with the 

Regional Administrator’s decision that further proceedings under 19(a)(6) 

are unwarranted based on the Activity’s change of position on the two 

provisions.

In reaching this conclusion, I make no finding with respect 

to whether the two provisions in question are non-negotiable. The 

Order requires that negotiability questions are to be handled pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 11(c), which provides, 

subject to certain conditions, that such questions may be referred by 

either party to the agency head for determination and thereafter by 

the labor organization to the Federal Labor Relations Council for 

decision if it disagrees with that determination.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

252
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

December 13, 1972

Mr. Stanley Q. Lyman 

National Vice President

National Association-of OQft

Government Employees t 

385 Dorchester Avenue ^

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Department of the Army

U. S. Army Materials & Mechanics 

Research Center 

Watertown, Mass.

Case No. 31-6069 E. 0.

31-6073 E. 0.

Dear Mr. Lyman:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the intervention of the 

National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) in the above 

cases.

The facts show that the NAGE intervened in Case No.

31-6073 E.O., and filed a timely challenge to the labor organization 

status of the Petitioner in that case, Government Employees Assistance Council, Inc. (GEAC), in the form of a Motion to Dismiss. It 

further appears that on September 7, 1972, all parties in the above 

cases participated in a pre-election conference, which resulted in 

agreement of the parties on the details of a consent election agreement. However, when presented with the Consent Election Agreement, 

the NAGE representative present refused to sign it. On several occasions thereafter, the latest of which was on September 18, 1972, the 

NAGE was again asked to sign the Agreement, but refused to do so.

It is not clear whether on these occasions that NAGE was told 

that failure to sign would result in the election being conducted without NAGE appearing on the ballot. In view of this, I shall remand the 

subject case to the Regional Administrator for further action as set 

forth below:

1. The Regional Administrator should ascertain whether the 

NAGE is now willing to execute a consent election agreement covering 

the unit sought by the GEAC.

2. If the NAGE indicates a willingness to execute a consent 

election agreement, a new agreement should be executed by all parties 

providing for a new election to be conducted as soon as possible among 

the employees in the same bargaining unit involved in the election of 

September 21, 1972. In this event, the impounded ballots cast in the 

prior election should be destroyed.

3. If'the NAGE indicates an unwillingness to execute a consent election agreement under the present circumstances, the Regional 

Administrator may cause to be opened the ballots cast in the September 21, 

1972 election, which, as noted above, have been impounded, and furnish a 

tally of the ballots to the parties who participated in the election.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

253
December 26, 1972

Roger P. Kaplan, Esq.

General Counsel 

National Association of

Government Employees 239

1341 G Street, N. W.

Suite 512

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: United States Department 9f 

the Navy 

U. S. Navy Public Works Center 

Great Lakes, Illinois 

Case No. 50-8947

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint in the above 

named case alleging violations of Sections 19(a)(1), (2) and (3) of 

Executive Order 11491.

Your request for review deals with three of the five allegations of the dismissed complaint alleging separate violations of 

the Order, and my consideration will be limited to these three 

allegations.

1. The activities of employees Howard, Gauthier and Fleming.

The investigation disclosed that these employees at various 

times in February 1972, during working time, solicited other employees 

to join and support the Government Employees Assistance Council (GEAC), 

and distributed literature in support of the GEAC.

You allege that by this conduct the Activity violated the 

Order. However, no claim is made and no evidence is found that these 

employees were supervisory or managerial. The theory of a violation 

would be based, therefore, upon a showing either that the Activity 

initiated, supported or condoned the work time union activities of 

the employees or that the Activity deliberately failed to enforce 

rules prohibiting such activities during working hours.

The investigative file discloses no evidence, and you point 

to none, which would support any theory of Activity responsibility 

for these activities. On the other hand, the investigation does disU.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f p i c b o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

- 2 -

close that, when apprised of the activities of the named employees, 

the Activity took measures designed to stop infractions of its rules 

prohibiting union activity during working time as follows:

a. All supervisors were informed of the no solicitation 

rules and the necessity to enforce them;

b. The GEAC was informed of the rules and cautioned about 

infractions of them;

c. The rules were published in an Activity publication 

and distributed to employees; and

d. The named employees who engaged in the activities 

were cautioned about the rules and their disregard thereof.

In the light of the above, I disagree with your assertion 

that the action taken by the Activity was "meager" and ineffective 

and agree with the Regional Administrator’s conclusion that this 

allegation of the complaint is not supported by evidence and that 

the Activity apparently took all reasonable measures to enforce its 

rules against union activity during working hours.

2. Solicitation of employee Christenson by employee Otis Whyte 

to sign a petition for American Federation of Government Employees, 

AFL-CIO (AFGE).

The complaint alleged that Otis Whyte, a designated Equal 

Opportunity Counselor, solicited signatures for AFGE and specifically 

solicited a signature from employee Christenson at a time when Mr. Whyte 

was supposedly conducting E.E.O. business.

The investigation disclosed that Mr. Whyte, a journeyman 

electrician with the Activity, had been appointed as an Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor by the Activity. This is the basis upon 

which both the complaint and request for review suggest that Mr. Whyte 

may be a management official. However, no evidence was presented by 

the Complainant, or was disclosed by the investigation, which would 

establish that Mr. Whyte is a management official.

I find, with regard to this issue, that the NAGE failed to 

meet its burden of proof regarding Mr. Whyte’s alleged management 

official status and concur with the dismissal of .this phase of the 

case. Further, it is my view that even though it were to be established 

that Mr. Whyte was a management official, the isolated character of the 

one item of evidence that he solicited one employee would not provide 

an adequate basis for the complaint.

254
-3-

3. The third allegation of the complaint pursued in the request for review, relates to the action of the Activity in locking 

and securing the office of the NAGE located on the Activity premises. 

The contention in the request for review in this regard is that the 

Activity had no real or apparent authority to take such action at a 

time when the Activity knew who was the authorized NAGE representative 

and, therefore, the action was in violation of Section 19(a)(1), (2) 

and (3) of the Order.

I disagree with this contention and agree with the dismissal 

of this allegation of the complaint. The facts are that the Activity 

had been informed sometime in February 1972, that due to a schism in 

the internal organization of Local R7-51 of the NAGE, the National 

Office of the NAGE was placing the Local in trusteeship and that one 

William Staben would be the new "on base" representative of the NAGE.

It is alleged by the Activity that, based on past experience and 

consistent with its responsibilities for the security of property 

within its control, the Activity believed that it was necessary to 

safeguard the office and its contents until the newly designated 

representative of the NAGE came forward to take possession. Consequently, the Activity changed the locks on the NAGE office and took 

other measures to secure the office and property therein. Thereafter, 

on or about March 21, 1972, the authorized NAGE representative, for 

the first time, asked for the keys to the office and they were given 

to him.

In view of the foregoing, I conclude that the Activity1s action 

with regard to the locks and security of the NAGE office and property, 

was not unreasonable and was not in violation of the Order.

Under all of the circumstances set out above, I agree with the 

Regional Administrator that the evidence is insufficient to establish 

a basis for any of the violations alleged in the complaint and .the 

request for review.

Accordingly, the request for review is denied.

Sincerely,

W, J» Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

DEC 2 G 1972

Mr. David Jay■Markraan 

Attorney

National Federation of Federal OAf)

Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D, C. 20006

Re: Department of the Army 

Military Ocean Terminal 

Bayonne, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-1704 (RO)

Dear Mr. Markman:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Objections In the 

above-captioned matter.

Based upon a full review of the evidence submitted, I find, 

in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that the objection 

lacks merit. The objection, filed by Local 1550, National Federation 

of Federal Employees (NFFE), charges the American Federation of 

Government Employees (AFGE), Local 2S5S, with electioneering at the 

polling place. It is based on tho allegation of an observer for the 

NFFE that a forklift operator was riding around one polling area 

in his vehicle with an AFGE sticker attached to the side of the 

vehicle. The objecting party was advised by letter dated October 2, 

1972, from the Area Administrator that the burden of proof, Including 

the procurement of evidence from witnesses, lies with the objecting 

party. However, no evidence in support of the objection was 

presented to show that any voters saw the vehicle or the sticker.

With regard to the contention in your request for review 

that the alleged lnoldents constitute electioneering at the polling 

place which is prohibited by the Procedural Guide for Conduct of 

Elections Under Supervision of the Assistant Secretary Pursuant to 

Executive Order 11491, I have stated previously in U. S. Army 

Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia, A/SLMR No. 157, that 

the language of the Guide reflects a policy designed to provide the 

proper conditions which would enable employees to register a free 

and untrammeled choice for or against a collective bargaining 

representative. However, as I also stated in that case, such policy 

must be applied on a case by case basis In accordance with the 

evidence presented. As noted above, no evidence was presented to 

show that any voter saw the vehicle or the sticker.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O p f ic b o f m K A s s is t a n t Sb c u s t a &y

W A S H I N G T O N

255
- 2 -

Finally, the cases olted In your request for review to 

support your contention that the policy In the private seotor of

forbidding electioneering at the polls should be adopted by the 

Assistant Secretary are distinguishable from the present case.

Thus, tho cases you olte are concerned with electioneering through 

conversations between parties and voters in the polling place. The 

present case does not Involve conversationr, with voters but rather 

the display of a small stloker on the side of a forklift truck vhloh 

was in the vicinity of the polling area one or more times.

Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the 

objection laoks merit.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the objection to the election 

Is denied.

Slnoerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

l

JAN 1 0

Mr. Daniel J. Kearney 

National Vice President

American Federation of Government Q A i

Employees, AFL-CIO 

512 Gallivan Blvd. Suite 2 

Dorchester, Massachusetts 02124'

Re: Department of the Army 

U. S. Army Materials and 

Mechanics Research Center 

Watertown, Mass.

Case Nos. 31-6069 E.O.

31-6073 E.O.

Dear Mr. Kearney:

X have considered carefully your Motion to Reconsider my 

ruling of December 13, 1972, in the above named cases.

I should like to take this opportunity to comment on your 

apparent misunderstanding of the service requirements of the 

Regulations. The Regulations require that service of a request for 

review be made on the organization which is a party to the case. A 

check of the case file herein reveals that service was made by NAGE 

on the President of Local 3404 of AFGE and that Mr. Louis S. Wallerstein, 

Director of the Office of Federal Labor-Management Relations, sent a 

copy of his letter of acknowledgment of the request for review to the 

Local President.

While I can appreciate your desire to be fully informed of all 

developments in AFGE cases, X believe that this can be largely achieved 

if you will take steps to have your local officials keep you informed 

of official notifications.

Under all the circumstances, I find that your Motion does not 

raise additional facts which would warrant reconsideration of this 

matter. Accordingly, your Motion is hereby denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

256
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 %

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

-•vaxovJAN 2 2 1973

Neal Ho Fine, Esq.

Assistant to the Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government O A O

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: U. S. Department of Justice

Immigration and Naturalization 

Service 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-3617 (CA)

Dear Mr. Fine: j

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging a 

violation of Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Executive Order.

I find, in agreement with your contention, that Section 

19(d) of the Executive Order, as amended, is not controlling in 

this case. Thus, the complaint clearly is based on what you contend 

is a "unilateral cancellation" of the arbitration proceedings and is 

not an attempt to raise the issues with respect to the merits of the 

grievance under the complaint procedure. However, I find that 

further proceedings in this matter are not warranted.

Although you contend that the case of Long Beach Naval Shipyard, 

A/SLMR No. 154, is controlling in this matter, I believe that the 

circumstances in that case clearly are distinguishable from the facts 

in this case. In the Long Beach case, the Activity cancelled the 

scheduled arbitration hearing and, as a result, the grievance was not 

arbitrated. In the present case, the Activity made an appearance at 

the arbitration hearing and there announced that it was not participating in the hearing. However, the arbitration proceeding took place, 

an observer for the Activity was present until the conclusion of the 

proceeding, and the arbitrator's subsequent decision, which was 

favorable to the Complainant, was appealed by the Activity to the 

Federal Labor Relations Council where the appeal is pending at present.

In view of all of the above circumstances, your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

JAN 2 2 1973

Mr. William J. Foland 

Civilian Personnel Officer 

Department of the Army 

Aberdeen Proving Ground 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005

Re: Department of the Army

Aberdeen Proving Ground Command 

Aberdeen.Proving Ground, Md.

Case No. 22-3519 (RA)

Dear Mr. Foland:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your RA petition, which petition 

was based on a "good faith doubt" that the American Federation of 

Government Employees represents a majority of the nonsupervisory 

guards under the Aberdeen Proving Ground Command.

I have concluded that the circumstances herein present issues 

which can be resolved best on the basis of record testimony. Therefore, 

the case is remanded to the Regional Administrator for reinstatement of 

the petition and the issuance of a notice of hearing.

In order that an adequate record be made at the hearing, 

evidence should be adduced concerning the question whether the Edgewood 

personnel constitute an addition or accretion to the unit at Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, and as to whether the character and scope of the 

original units, prior to the consolidation, have changed so that they 

may no longer be appropriate. In this regard, the decisions in United 

States Department of the Air Force, 434th S.O.W., Air Force Reserve, 

Grissom Air Force Base, Peru, Indiana, A/SLMR No. 149 and Headquarters, 

U. S. Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Missouri, A/SLMR No.

160 should be examined for guidance concerning the type of evidence 

which should be elicited at the hearing.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

257
O f p i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT'OF LABOR

JAN 2 2

Mr, Stanley Q« Lyman 

National Vice President 

National Association of 

Government Employees 

285 Dorchester Avenue - 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

244

Re: Defense Supply Agency

Defense Contract Administrative 

Services Region 

Case No. 31-6092 EiO.

Dear Ur* Lyman:

The undersigned has considered carefully your request for 

review of the Regional Administrator's action in the above named 

case.

I, have .concludcd that the current position of the Activity 

as well as the position taken by the NAGE that the two established 

units represented by the NAGE as the incumbent labor organization 

now constitute a single appropriate unit, raises Issues that can 

best be resolved on the basis of record testimony, X am, therefore, 

remanding the case to tho Regional Administrator for the issuance 

of a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

’.V, J, Usery, Jr, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c b o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

JAN 2 2 1973

Mr. William E. Fredenberger, Jr. OA<Z

Mulholland, Hickey & Lyman - fc'xO

Suite 620, Tower Building 

Washington, D„ C. 20005

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

National Capital Airports 

Fire Departments 

Case No. 22-3711 (RO)

Dear Mr. Fredenberger:

X have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed by 

International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) in the above named 

case.

Two days prior to the filing of the petition herein, on 

September 28, 1972, an agreement was signed by the incumbent labor 

organization, National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1709 

(NFFE), and Federal Aviation Administration, National Capital Airports 

(Activity). This agreement was awaiting approval by higher agency 

authority on the date the petition in the subject case was filed and 

its duration was to be one year from the date of approval by "the 

Administrator or his designee."

The Acting Regional Administrator dismissed the petition on 

the ground that it was barred by the negotiated agreement and I agree 

with his decision for the reasons explained hereinafter.

In the request for review, you cite two grounds to support 

your contention that the agreement should not constitute a bar under 

the circumstances here presented. First, you contend that the date of 

termination cannot be determined from a reading of the "Duration" 

article of the agreement alone without regard to some other outside 

point of reference — in this case, the date of approval by higher 

authority. From this you argue that the agreement cannot be a bar, 

citing language taken from Treasury Department, United States Mint, 

Philadelphia. Pa.. A/SLMR No. 45, where I stated as follows:

258
- 2 -

In my view, in order for an agreement to constitute 

a bar to the processing of a petition it should contain 

a clearly enunciated fixed term or duration from which 

employees and labor organizations can ascertain, without 

the necessity of relying on other factors, the appropriate 

time for the filing of representation petitions.

A/SLMR No. 45, however, did not involve circumstances where 

the uncertainty of an agreement's duration stemmed from an approval 

date by higher authority not yet determined at the time the petition 

was filed. An exception was made to the broad language of the above 

quotation by the provision of Section 202.3(c) of the Regulations, 

which was in effect at all times material herein, to the effect that 

a signed agreement is a bar to a petition during the period that the 

agreement is in effect or awaiting approval at a higher management 

level. It should be rioted that under the current regulations, the 

agreement bar period begins to run from the date of execution of the 

agreement by the Activity and the incumbent exclusive representative.

My policy with respect to agreements awaiting approval at a 

higher management level was correctly stated by the Acting Regional 

Administrator to be that such an agreement will be treated as a bar.

I so found in Federal Aviation Administration and Professional Air 

Traffic Controllers Organization(PATCO) A/SLMR No. 173. The PATCO 

case, which illustrates the exception established in "awaiting 

approval" cases to the broad application of the language quoted above 

from A/SLMR No, 45, involved facts similar to those here involved« In 

PATCO a number of separate agreements were awaiting approval at a 

higher management level and the duration of the agreements could not 

be determined until approvals had been given. I held in that case 

that these agreements constituted bars to elections in the units 

covered by such agreements, and I so find in the present case.

Your second contention is that the facts here present "unusual 

circumstances" within the meaning of Section 202.3(c) of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations "which will substantially affect • • . the 

majority representation." I also reject this contention. The language 

relied on in this Section of the Regulations does not apply, and is not 

meant to apply, to situations where questions are raised by a rival 

labor organization as to the majority status of an incumbent labor 

organization during the course of the latter's certification year or 

during the term (not to exceed two years) of a valid negotiated 

agreement which would otherwise bar a petition by a rival labor organization, To hold to the contrary would undermine the salutary 

purpose of the agreement bar principle and would encourage raiding 

by rival labor organizations during the agreement bar periods of 

valid negotiated agreements.

- 3 -

The term "unusual circumstances" in Section 202.3(c) has been 

held to apply in a case of defunctness of an incumbent labor organization. (See discussion of defunctness in PATCO.) It also may apply 

to schism cases and to cases where a major reorganization has taken 

place during the period of an existing agreement which would have an 

obvious impact upon the established bargaining unit, and upon the 

majority status of the labor organization which is a party to the 

agreement in such cases, and to other possible situations.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Acting Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the petition is uenied.

Sincerely,

W. J, Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

259
JAN VL '*n

Mr. Benjamin G. V/hite 

3008 S. E. 22nd Circle 

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

Re: Oklahoma City Air iMateriel Area 

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma 

Case No. €3-4047 (CA)

Dear Mr* White:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator*s dismissal of your amended complaint in 

the above named case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1) of 

Executive Order 11491,

I agree with the Regional Administrator, who dismissed the 

amended complaint on the grounds that it was not timely filed in 

accordance with Section 203.2 of the Regulations of the Assistant 

Secretary and also that the amended complaint and report of investigation were not served simultaneously on the Oklahoma City Air 

Materiel Area (OCAMA) as required by Section 203.4(b) of the 

Regulations, While you maintain that the violation of Section 19(a) 

(1) is a continuing violation which extends to the present, you 

failed to specify any particular acts alleged to be unfair labor 

practices which occurred within six months prior to the filing of 

tho charge letter with OCAMA or within nine months preceding the 

filing of the amended complaint with the LMSA Area Office.

Further, I note that you failed to serve a copy of the 

amended complaint, and those materials comprising your report of 

investigation,, on OCAMA even after having been advised on several 

occasions by the Dallas Area Administrator that such service was 

required by Section 203.4(b) of the Regulations of the Assistant 

Secretary.

Under these circumstances, your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your amended 

complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

January 22, 1973

Mr. Gilbert G. Bateman

IBEW Representative

Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees

Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO OA"7

Building 236 

Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, Virginia 23709

Re: Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, Virginia 

Case No. 22-3570 (CA)

Dear Mr. Bateman:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Acting 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard (Activity) violated Section 19(a)(1) of Executive Order 11491.

The complaint alleges that the Activity harassed, interfered with 

and restrained stewards of the Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal 

Trades Council, AFL-CIO (MTC) in the performance of their responsibilities.

The interference and restrictions alleged are that (1) before granting time 

allowed to conduct union-employer business, stewards are interrogated about 

the nature and handling of such business and are denied the "time allowed" 

if, in the unilateral determination of the supervisors, the answers are not 

satisfactory; (2) the Activity has notified MTC and its stewards that "time 

allowed" will not be granted for the purpose of preparing or writing grievances 

using the procedures outlined in the agreement between'the parties; and (3) 

stewards have been notified by the Activity that they may not visit the MTC 

office in the Shipyard during working hours or other offices or areas within the Shipyard except those offices in the respective shops of the stewards 

unless the steward is attending a scheduled hearing as an employee representative.

There is a collective bargaining agreement between the parties in 

this case which has provisions governing the permissible activities of stewards 

during working hours. The Activity has taken the position in a memorandum in 

support of its Motion to Dismiss filed with the Regional Administrator, that 

the above listed actions of the Activity, which it admits were taken, were 

in harmony with the ground rules and procedures set forth in the agreement.

Your complaint does not allege that there has been a violation 

of the agreement or that there is any disagreement between MTC and the

260
-2-

Activity concerning the interpretation or application of any provision 

of the agreement.

In your request for review, you do not specifically contend that 

there has been a violation of the agreement or that there is a dispute 

over the interpretation of the agreement. You do contend that the "complaint encompasses more than an alleged violation, or a dispute over the 

interpretation of the Negotiated Agreement and that ... Report No. 49 

should not apply in this matter." You do contend in the request for review 

that the Activity changed its practice of allowing stewards more freedom 

in the use of official time for their activities to a more restrictive 

practice limiting their use of official time and sometimes denied requests 

for use of official time. This contention of a change in practice during 

the life of the agreement was not made in the complaint and you point to 

no evidence submitted with the complaint concerning the alleged change in 

practice or to any independent evidence of violations of Section 19(a)(1). 

Further, I note that you do not contend that the alleged change of practice 

by the Activity after four years under the agreement was in violation of the 

provisions of the agreement setting out the "ground rules" for the permissible 

official time activities of stewards.

While I agree with your contention that A/S Report No. 49 does not 

apply to the facts of this case as no question of contract interpretation is 

involved herein and that, therefore, reliance on that report by the Acting 

Regional Administrator in support of the dismissal was inappropriate, nevertheless, based on the foregoing circumstances I conclude that further proceedings on your complaint are unwarranted. Thus, use of official time for 

the conduct of certain business of a labor organization is prohibited by 

Section 20 of the Executive Order, and that Section also provides, subject 

to limitations, that official time may be authorized for the conduct of negotiations of an agreement as agreed by the parties. Otherwise use.:of official time for union business not specifically prohibited by the Order, is not 

a matter of right, but is purely a matter of agreement between the parties.

Under these circumstances, I agree with the dismissal of the complaint in this matter.

Accordingly, your request for review is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

JAN 2 2 1973

Mr. Dale M. Titler 

Secretary, Local 943 

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

P. 0. Box 7361 

Mississippi City Station 

Gulfport, Mississippi 39501

Re: Keesler Technical Training 

Center

Keesler Air Force Base, Miss.

Case No. 41-3137 (CA)

Dear Mr. Titler:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint filed September 21, 

1972, in the above named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1), 

(4) and (6) of Executive Order 11491 by Keesler Technical Training 

Center (Activity).

X agree with the finding of the Regional Administrator that 

your complaint was not filed timely as required by Section 203.2 of 

the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary. That Section, which was 

in effect at the time the complaint was filed, provides in pertinent 

part, that "a complaint to the Assistant Secretary shall not be 

considered timely unless filed . . „ within thirty (30) days of the 

receipt by the charging party of the final decision, . „ ."

In this case, the charge was received by the Activity on 

July 12, 1972. The Activity's final decision on the charge was given 

on July 14, 1972. In your complaint, which was not filed until 

September 21, 1972, it is acknowledged that the^ Activity's response 

of July 14, 1972, was accepted "as final and /_the charging partyj

commenced preparation of a formal charge /complaint7."

In view of the foregoing, I find it unnecessary to consider the 

merits of the case or the alternative grounds upon which the Regional 

Administrator based his dismissal.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20210

261
- 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Wo J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y £

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 %

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

1

Mr. Henry Webb 

President, Local 1138

American Federation of Government 249

Employees, AFL-CIO 

P.. 0. Box 617 

Fairborn, Ohio 45324

Re: United Spates A1'r Force

Aeronautical Systems Division 

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 

Case No. 53-6147

Dear Mr. Webb:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to conduct 

allegedly affecting the results of the election held on November 1,

1972.

The Regional Administrator, in his Report and Findings dated 

December 7, 1972, advised you of your right, under Section 202.20(f) 

of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, to obtain a review of 

his action by filing a request for review with the undersigned. He 

further advised that the request must be received by me in Washington, 

D. C. by the close of business December 20, 1972.

Your request for review,dated December 18, 1972, was mailed 

from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and postmarked December 19,

1972. It arrived in my office subsequent to the December 20, 1972, 

due date and, therefore, was filed untimely.

Accordingly, your request for review cannot be considered 

on its merits, and it is hereby denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

262
X - 1 - V

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Of f ic e o f th e A ssist a n t S ec r eta r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr. Edward J. Hattam

President rj r n

Upper Heyford Federation of Teachers

Local 2148, Box 1256

APO New York, New York 09194

Re: Department of the Army

Directorate, U. S. Dependent Schools

European Area

Case No. 22-3575 (CA)

Dear Mr. Hattam:

I have considered carefully your Request for Review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging 

violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the Executive Order, as 

amended, in the above named case.

Your complaint alleges that the Activity violated the 

Executive Order in that it refused to permit your organization, the 

Upper Heyford Federation of Teachers, Local 2148, the use of such 

facilities as teachers' mailboxes and school bulletin boards, while 

the Overseas Education Association, which is the recognized collective 

bargaining agent for the unit, is allowed the use of such facilities.

Under all the circumstances disclosed by the investigation 

herein, 1 conclude, in agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, that the complaint should be dismissed. With regard to the 

substance of the 19(a)(1) and (2) allegations, I agree with the 

Acting Regional Administrator's rejection of your argument that your 

organization should have rights equal to that of a certified or 

recognized union in communicating with unit personnel. Privileges 

accrue to an Incumbent labor organization which are not necessarily 

available to a rival union.

In fact, adequate and reasonable means of communication were 

shown to be available to your organization. In his dismissal letter, 

the Acting Regional Administrator noted the availability to your 

organization of such means of communication as handouts on work sites, 

posting of notices on bulletin boards and use of meeting rooms in 

common areas on the military installation, and the use of local 

American or British mail systems. I agree with the Acting Regional

Administrator that these are reasonable alternatives for communicating 

with unit employees.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

263
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr« Louis B. Montenegro 

President| Local 2263

American Federation of Government 251

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1615 Carlisle Blvd., S. E.- 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106

Re: United States Air Force

Air Force Special Weapons Center 

Kirtland Air Force Base 

New Mexico

Case No. 63-3793 (AC)

Dear Mr. Montenegro:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on a Petition for 

Amendment of Certification in the above named case.

The request for review raises facts concerning which the 

Regional Administrator was apparently unaware at the time he issued 

his Report aftd Findings.

Accordingly, I am remanding the case to the Regional Administrator for further consideration and the Issuance of a notice of 

hearing or a supplemental report and findings as may be appropriate.

Further investigation or hearing should go into the matter 

whether or not the amendment to the certification sought by the Air 

Force Special Weapons Center would have the effect of excluding from 

the unit some of the employees recently transferred to Kirtland 

East. In addition, further investigation or hearing, should determine, 

among other things, the facts relating to the personnel office or 

offices serving the employees in the expanded unit and the. proper 

designation of the Activity.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

^ 7 ' 7 J

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Hr, Herbert Cahn

President, Local 476 ,

National Federation of 0 ^ 0

Federal Employees 

P. 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Combat Development 

Command 

Ft, Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2870 E.O.

Case No. 32-2877 E.O.

Dear Mr. Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition in Case No.

32-2877 and his denial of your alleged status as an intervenor in 

Case No. 32-2870.

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

your petition, as amended at the hearing in the subject cases, 

encompasses the unit petitioned for by Local 1904, American Federation 

of Government Employees (AFGE) and that, therefore, you were required, 

pursuant to Section 202.5(b) of the Regulations, to file your petition 

during the 10 day posting period with respect to AFGE's petition and 

to support it with the prescribed showing of interest. As you did not 

comply with these requirements, your petition was untimely filed.

See Bethel Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U. S. Department of 

Interior', Bethel, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 200. Your contention that the 

amendment to your petition should be found untimely and the original 

petition be allowed to stand is without merit. As your representative 

amended the petition at the hearing on the record, your contention 

that the amendment should not have been accepted because it-was not 

on the proper forms, or filed in accordance with the regulations, is 

also without merit.

Further, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find 

that you cannot be regarded as an intervenor in Case No. 32-2870. The 

evidence is clear that you challenged the intervenor status mistakenly 

assigned you and specifically requested the status of a petitioner.

264
- 2 -

When it was determined that your showing of interest was sufficient to 

qualify you as a petitioner, in accordance with your request, you were 

advised that your organization would be regarded as a petitioner 

rather thati an intervenor. Thus your petition was given a separate 

case number and a new Notice to Employees was posted. I find no 

evidence that at any time material thereafter you sought any change 

in this status.

You also assert that AFGE is in violation of Section 18(a) of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended, "in that it forged signatures to 

petitions" in two other cases. You evidently believe that this matter 

should be resolved before further proceedings herein are undertaken.

I have determined previously in Report No. 9 (copy enclosed) that the 

processing of representation cases will not be delayed pending 

investigation and resolution of such matters. Accordingly, I reject 

your assertion in this regard.

Finally, you contend that the unfair labor practice complaint 

you filed against the Combat Development Command and AFGE just prior 

to the opening of the hearing in these cases supersedes and takes 

precedence Over a unit determination hearing and related proceedings. 

Under all the circumstances, I find that no party's rights were 

prejudiced by proceeding with the hearing in this matter. However, 

the violations alleged in your unfair labor practice complaint, 

insofar as they pertain to the petition in Case No. 32-2870, will be 

investigated and resolved by the Regional Administrator before 

proceeding to election.

In accordance with the above, your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your petition 

in Case No. 32-2877 and his determination that NFFE did not qualify as 

an intervenor in Case No. 32-2870, is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Howard T. O'Brien 253

P. 0. Box 513

Troy, New York 12181

Re: Social Security Administration 

Regional Office 

New Yoik, New York 

Case No. 30-4720

Dear Mr. O'Brien:

X have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

the Social Security Administration (Agency) violated Section 19(a)(1) 

of the Executive Order.

In your complaint, you assert that the Agency has interfered 

with, coerced and restrained you in the exercise of your rights granted 

under Sections 7(d)(3) and 7(e) of the Order, by failing and refusing 

to grant an Official Relationship" to the Region II Association of 

Social Insurance Administrators, (Association), in which organization 

you are a member.

While I do not necessarily agree with the Regional Administrator's finding that supervisors are not "employees" within the 

meaning of the Order, nevertheless, I agree with the dismissal of 

your complaint in this matter, based on a distinction which must be 

made between the types of rights granted by the Order and the enforcement mechanisms provided for their vindication. The Order grants 

certain individual rights" and other rights which may be referred to 

as "collective rights." An illustration of this distinction is shown 

by a comparison of Section 19(a)(1) of the Order, which is an 

enforcement mechanism for "individual rights", with Sections 19(a)(5) 

and (6) which are enforcement mechanisms for the "collective rights" 

of qualified labor organizations. In this connection, an individual 

employee would not have standing to assert a violation of Section 

19(a)(5) or (6) because the rights to recognition or collective 

bargaining are ' collective rights" which can be exercised only by a 

labor organization as defined in Section 2(e) of the Order.
- 2 -

In your request for review you cite my decision in Social 

Security Administration. Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, A/SLMR No.

142, fn. 5, where it is stated that Sections 7 and 21(b) of the Order 

grant "certain £tatus and certain rights and privileges' in dealing 

with agencies [_ to J supervisors or associations of supervisors." 

However, it should be noted that neither in the Social Security Administration case, cited above, nor in any other decision, have I 

determined that such rights and privileges are protected under Section 

19 of the Order.

You have not expressly defined the rl».ht claimed to have been 

violated by the Agency but it seems clear from my reconstruction of 

the facts of the case and the positions of the parties, together with 

the arguments you make in support of the complaint, that you are 

contending that the right allegedly violated is the alleged right of 

the.Association to be accorded "Official Relationship* status by the 

Ag_ency under Section 7(e) of the Order.

As explained above, the right which you assert under your 

19(a)(1) complaint is, in fact, a collective right and not an individual 

right. I find that such a right cannot be enforced through a complaint 

action filed by you as an individual under Section 19(a)(1). You are 

aware that the Association could not assert this right under Section 

19(a)(5) or (6) because it is not a labor organization as defined in 

Section 2(e) of the Order. Thus, by filing individually under Section 

19(a)(1) it appears that you are attempting to do indirectly that which 

cannot be done directly.

In concluding, as I do, that your complaint under Section 

19(a)(1) is inappropriate, I am not suggesting that all avenues for 

relief under the Order are necessarily closed to your Association.

I note your contention that it is not logical that the Executive Order 

would have provided rights without remedies available in proper cases 

to organizations such as the Association. In his dismissal letter, 

the Regional Administrator referred you to Section 4(c)(4) of the Order, 

the provision conferring jurisdiction upon the Federal.Labor Relations 

Council to consider "matters it deems appropriate to assure the 

effectuation of the purposes of this Order." In this connection, I 

agree with the Regional Administrator that if, in fact, Section 7(e) 

confers rights upon the Association in this case which have, been 

violated, the Council would be the appropriate forum in which to seek 

a remedy.

- 3 -

Under the foregoing circumstances, your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's <Ji*mi»»al of your 

complaint Is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

266
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 I JBrr

% cssi;

Mr. Honry A. Webb 

President, Local 1138

American Federation of Government O K A

Employees, AFL-CIO * 0 3

P. 0. Box 617 

Fairborn, Ohio 45324

Re: United States Air Force Aeronautical 

Systems Division 

Wright-Patterson, AFB, Ohio 

Case Ho. 53-6147

Dear Ur. Webb:

1 have considered carefully your request dated February 10,

1973, that I reconsider my ruling of January 29, 1973, denying your 

request for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your objections to an election held on November 1, 1972. My denial 

was based on the fact that your request for review was received lata.

Your present request contains no facts that were not 

before me when my ruling of January 29, 1973, was made. You are 

misreading the requirement of Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations 

with respect to the time requirement for filing a request for review.

The controlling date is the date of receipt of the request for 

review by the Assistant Secretary and not the date of mailing by 

the party filing the request for review.

This was mado clear in the final sentence of the Regional 

Administrator's Report and Findings sent to you on December 7, 1972, 

in which he advised that a request for review must be received by tho 

Assistant Seoretary "by close of business Decembor 20, 1972," As I 

stated In ray ruling of January 29, 1973, your request for review 

arrived In my office after December 20, 1972, and therefore was 

filed untimely,

Accordingly, your request for reconsideration of my ruling 

of January 29, 1973, is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr* Andrew J, Ondrof 

Personnel Officer 

Bureau of Land Management 

U. S. Department of the Interior

Washington, D. C. 20240

Re: Riverside District and Land Office 

Bureau of Land Management 

Case No. 72-2763

Dear Mr. Ondrof:

I have considered carefully your request for a review of 

the Regional Administrator's decision overruling the Activity’s 

objections to the election in the above captioned case.

You contend that the Regional Administrator erred In his 

finding that the Activity agreed to an election eligibility list 

which Included six temporary employees whose right to vote was 

contested In one of the Activity's objections to the election. I 

find no evidence which would Indicate that the Activity filed any 

protest with the Area Administrator concerning the eligibility of 

temporary or casual employees prior to the election. The fact is 

that the Activity's District Manager did sign separate lists of 

employees designated as "eligible” and "ineligible." This act was 

not binding upon the Activity in the sense that its right to challenge 

voters on the "eligible" list was thereby waived. The "agreement" 

of the parties to a list of eligible voters, evidenced by their 

initials or signatures, is tentative only, and does not restrict 

the right to challenge for good cause any voter whose name appears 

thereon. The right to challenge is not restricted to would be 

voters whose names do not appear on the eligible list.

The Regional Administrator made It clear in his decision 

that the Issue with respect to the six temporary employees was one 

of eligibility, and not one of unit makeup, and that such Issues 

are to be resolved through the challenged ballot procedures. I 

agree with his finding in this regard.

Further, you assert that the Activity was not Informed 

concerning the challenged ballot procedure. Both the Election 

Agreement and the Notice of Election clearly indicate the right of 

an observer to challenge voters, and the latter specifically states

2-28-73 2 5 5
- 2 -

that a challenge must be made before the ballot in question is 

deposited in the ballot box. Further, in 1970, I issued a Procedural 

Guide for Conduct of Elections under Executive Order 11491. This 

publication, which was widely distributed to agencies and labor organizations, specifically states, among other things, that observers may 

challenge the eligibility of temporary employees. The Procedural 

Guide further states the initalling of an eligibility list is not 

to be construed as a waiver of the right to challenge. Under all the 

circumstances, I find your assertion lacks merit.

You contend that the Regional Administrator erred in his 

finding that the Assistant Secretary's decision directing the election 

related only to unit makeup and not eligibility. The Assistant 

Secretary's decision in A/SLMR No. 170 sets forth in specific detail 

the unit found to be appropriate. The unit description neither Includes 

nor excludes temporary employees as such and no mention of temporary 

employees is found in the Assistant Secretary's decision. Thus, it is 

clear that the Assistant Secretary made no decision concerning the 

eligibility of such employees. As the Regional Administrator indicated, 

the question of whether these individuals were eligible to vote was a 

separate matter depending on the nature of their employment, i.e., 

whether or not they are eligible because of the temporary nature of 

their employment. Under the circumstances, I find that your contention 

in this regard is lacking merit.

Finally you contend^that the Regional Administrator erred 

in overruling the objections raised by the Activity concerning the 

Assistant Secretary's determination that certain employees of the 

Activity were not professional employees and therefore were included 

improperly In the unit found appropriate and ruled eligible to vote In 

the election. You argue that the Regional Administrator’s finding was 

premature in the light of your appeal to the Federal Labor Relations 

Council (which was later dismissed as untimely by the Council: See 

FLRC 72A-31) concerning the criteria adopted by the Assistant Secretary 

in this regard. I note that your appeal did not seek, nor did the 

Council order, a stay of the election directed by the Assistant 

Secretary in this matter. I find, in agreement with the Regional 

Administrator, that when the Assistant Secretary Issues a decision 

specifically describing a unit which he has determined to be appropriate 

for purposes of exclusive recognition, his decision is binding on the 

agents of the Assistant Secretary, notwithstanding any appeal to the 

Council. Therefore, I reject your contention in this regard.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's decision overruling the Activity's

- 3 -

objections to the election Is denied, and the Regional Administrator 

is directed to cause a Certification of Representative to be Issued 

by the Area Administrator.

Sincerely,

W. J, Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

268
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Orvil L. Robinson

U. S. Department of Commerce o c c

NOAA, National Weather Service 

6795 Convair Roa’d 

El Paso, Texas 79925

Re: U. S. Department of Commerce

National-Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National 

Weather Service 

El Paso, Texas 

Case No. 63-4028 (G & A)

Dear Mr. Robinson:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the Application For Decision 

On Grlevabillty Or Arbitrability in the instant case.

The question before me is whether your grievance filed with 

the Agency on July 13, 1972, is subject to the negotiated grievance 

procedure in the multi-unit agreement between the Director, National 

Heather Service and the National Association of Government Employees.

The Regional Administrator's dismissal letter stated in part: 

"It appears that the Activity's June 5, 1972, letter to Mr. Robinson 

was to afford him the required 60-day notice that he was not performing 

at an acceptable level of competence. As this letter was, in fact, the 

initial step in the agency's within-grade determination procedure, I 

conclude that any allegedly improper statements contained in the letter 

would be subject to review under the statutory appeals procedures 

existing for within-grade denials."

You contend in your request for review "that the ^Regional/ 

Administrator's decision is in technical error because the agency has 

ruled against my allegation of impropriety and since my within-grade 

increase was granted, I have no statutory right of appeal."

I find the issues raised in your request for review were 

rendered moot by the fact that although your within-grade increase was 

denied, the denial was reversed and the within-grade increase was made 

retroactive to its original due date. Moreover, the Agency official 

who granted retroactively your within-grade increase stated that "the 

original denial of a WGI was not a reprisal against you for your union

- 2 -

activities." In my opinion these final actions by the Agency served to 

withdraw and nullify, for all practical purposes, the June 5, 1972, 

cautionary letter by which you are aggrieved.

I find that the Regional Administrator was correct in dismissing 

the instant application. It was appropriate for the cautionary letter 

of June 5, 1972, to be included as a part of the file of the statutory 

appeals procedure and to be considered under that procedure rather than 'i’: 

as an independent grievance. Therefore, I conclude, in agreement with 

the Regional Administrator, that because a statutory appeals procedure 

exists to resolve the subject matter of the present grievance, the 

Assistant Secretary has no jurisdiction to make a determination in this 

matter, as Indicated in Section 13(a) of Executive Order 11491.

Accordingly, your request that the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the application be reversed, is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

269
^ /f /Z 3 ^

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ^

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Llr. Howard T. O'Brien

P. 0. Box 513

Troy, Now York 12181

Re: Social Security Administration 

Regional Office 

New York, N. Y.

Case No. 30-4720

Dear Mr. O'Brien:

I have considered carefully your request dated March 2,

1973, that I reconsider ray ruling of February 12, 1973, denying 

your request for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your complaint in the above named case alleging that the Social 

Security Administration violated Section 19(a)(1) of Executive 

Order 11491.

Your request for reconsideration contains no facts and 

raises no points that were not before me and considered in my 

denial of your request for review on February 12, 1973. As I 

indicated in that ruling, if there have been rights violated in 

this matter, the Federal Labor Relations Council would be the 

appropriate forum in which to seek a remedy. In this regard 

it should be noted that under Section 2411.13 of the Council's 

rules any party aggrieved by a final decision of the Assistant 

Secretary may petition the Council for review. The time limit 

for filing Is 20 days from the date the decision was served on 

the party seeking review.

Based on the foregoing, your request for reconsideration 

of my ruling of February 12, 1973, Is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

March 14, 1973

Carl W. Hughes, M. D.

Major General, MC

Commanding Officer 258

Tripler Army Medical Center 

U. S. Army Medical Corps 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96438

Re: U. S. Army Medical Corps

Tripler Army Medical Center 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

Case No. 73-498

Dear General Hughes:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s Report and Ruling on Objection to Runoff 

Election in the above named case.

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

your objection should be overruled. You have alleged in your objection that three potential voters were denied use of the challenged 

ballot procedure, and that if these potential voters had voted under 

challenge, their ballots could have been determinative of the results 

of the election. You concede in your objection that had the three 

employees voted under challenge, the parties to the representation 

proceeding would have agreed that they were ineligible. However, 

you misinterpret the Procedural Guide for Conduct of Elections when 

you contend that an investigation automatically would be made despite 

your position that the employees were ineligible to vote.

Challenged ballots of employees whom the parties agree are 

ineligible after the election and before the tally, are discarded as 

nullities if the parties’ agreement is concurred in by the agent of 

the Assistant Secretary and, under these circumstances are not included in the tally. Having been resolved as ineligible ballots, 

challenged ballots could not be determinative of the results of the 

election.

It is first mentioned in your request for review, that a 

fourth employee also was denied a challenged ballot. I find it unnecessary to consider this contention, which should have been raised 

initially with the Area Administrator.

With regard to the other contentions raised in your request 

for review, the investigation reveals that the three employees in 

question were on the excludable list; all three were given explanations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

270
- 2 -

by the official observers and the Department of Labor representative 

as to why they were on the list; two of the three appear from their 

affidavits to have accepted the explanations given at the polls and 

the third employee apparently accepted the explanation after talking 

with her supervisor as she did not return to the polls to vote a 

challenged ballot. Contrary to your contention, I see no impropriety 

in the action of the Department of Labor representative in referring 

the presumed ineligible voters to the Activity official for further 

explanation of their ineligible status.

You have conceded in your objection that the parties to the 

election would have agreed at the tally that the employees in question 

were ineligible if they had voted challenged ballots. The effect of 

such agreement would have been to remove the challenged ballots from 

the tally and no further investigation or ruling regarding them would 

have been necessary.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the objection to the election 

is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON7, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Elihu I. Leifer 

Attorney

Sherman, Dunn, Cohen & Leifer q c ,Q

1125 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 6d\3

Suite 801

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: National Park Service

John F. Kennedy Center for 

the Performing Arts 

Case No. 22-3701 (RO)

Dear Mr. Leifer:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the R0 petition filed by 

Local Union No. 27, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 

in the above named case.

I have concluded that the circumstances herein present accretion 

issues which can be re,solved best on the basis of record testimony. 

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Regional Administrator for 

reinstatement of the petition and the issuance of a notice of hearing.

In order that an adequate record be made at the hearing, ' 

evidence should be adduced concerning, but not limited to, the following 

matter*■

1. Tho propel designation of uha Activity,

2. The specific duties of the employees in the unit 

petitioned for and their relationship and job 

contacts, if any, with employees in the existing 

National Capital Parks unit.

3. The specific duties of those National Capital 

Parks employees providing services to the 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts 

who are not included in the claimed unit.

271
The supervisory structure with respect to the 

employees in the claimed unit and the relationship of that structure with the supervisory 

structure in the existing Activity-wide unit.

Previous bargaining history with respect to 

employees in the claimed unit, if any.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

March 14, 1973

Mr. Wayne Kennedy 

Chief Steward

Local 2816, American Federation of 260

Government Employees, AFL-CIO

4139 Rose

Western Springs, Illinois 60558

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Region V

Chicago, Illinois 

Case No. 50-8232 (CA)

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

Region V of the Office of Economic Opportunity (Activity) violated 

Section 19(a)(6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

I find that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, I find that at all 

times material the Activity was not obligated to meet and confer with 

Local 2816 as the latter ceased to be the exclusive representative of 

the unit employees when its parent organization was certified on 

April 28, 1971, for a nationwide unit of all Office of Economic Opportunity employees including those represented by Local 2816.

In a recent decision dealing with the same parties and essentially the same factual situation, Office of Economic Opportunity, 

Region V, Chicago, Illinois, A/SLMR No. 251, I stated that "In my view, 

when a labor organization acquires exclusive recognition in a nationwide 

unit that encompasses previously recognized, less comprehensive exclusive bargaining units, such less comprehensive units cease to exist." 

Thus, from the date that your parent labor organization received certification for a nationwide unit any bargaining obligation herein was 

owed solely to your parent organization. Further, there is no evidence 

that, prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter, Local 2816 

was designated by your parent organization to act as an agent for bargaining at the local level. Under these circumstances, I find no basis 

to conclude that the Activity improperly refused to negotiate with Local 

2816.

With regard to your reference to the Assistant Secretary's 

Report No. 48, it is clear from his decision that the Regional AdminisU.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

272
- 2 -

trator ruled on the merits of the case in dismissing your complaint 

and did not rely on Report No. 48.

Under all of the circumstances, your request for review 

seeking reversal, of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your 

complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary' of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

3 - 1 4 - 7 3 &

Mr. Henry A. Webb 

President, Local 1138

American Federation of Government 9 R 1

Employees, AFL-CIO * D X

P. 0. Box 617 

Fairborn, Ohio 45324

Re: United States Air Fo-ce Aeronautical 

Systems Division 

Wright-Patterson, AFB, Ohio 

Case No. 53-6147

Dear Mr. Webb:

I have considered carefully your request dated March 8, 1973, 

that I reconsider my ruling of January 29, 1973, which I declined to 

reconsider in my response dated February 22, 1973, to your request of 

February 22, 1972.

\

It is always painful, I am sure, for appellants to accept 

procedural dismissals of cases and I can appreciate your feelings.

However, in the present case I am bound by the Regulations, 

Section 202.6(d) as I interpret it and have interpreted it in other 

cases. Your present request for reconsideration raises no point 

respecting the interpretation of Section 202.6(d), as applied to 

this case, which I have not previously considered and rejected.

Accordingly, your March 8, 1973, request for reconsideration 

of my ruling of January 29, 1973, is denied.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

273
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

3-2 7 -

Mr. James L. Neustadt 

Staff Counsel

American Federation of 262

Government Employees 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: U. S. Aifr.Force

804th Combat Support Group 

Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota 

Case No. 60-3219 (RO)

Dear Mr. Neustadt:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition filed by Local 3379, 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), in the 

above named case.

I have concluded that in the circumstances herein present, there 

are issues which can be resolved best on the basis of record testimony. 

Therefore, I am remanding the case to the Regional Administrator for 

reinstatement of the petition and the issuance of a notice of hearing.

In order that an adequate record be made at the hearing, 

evidence should be adduced as to the exact hour and date that Messrs. 

Alkire, Mohr and Rakowski, and the Base Commander individually signed 

the agreement; and as to their respective authority to bind the parties 

to the agreement. Also, evidence should be adduced as to whether the 

parties to the agreement had knowledge of the AFGE's filing of, or 

intent to file, its petition before the agreement was executed. Finally 

evidence should be obtained as to the timeliness of the petition in the 

subject case in connection with the Activity's contention that the 90 

day bar period provided by Section 202.3(d) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations may be extended for certain additional periods of time 

pursuant to Sections 206.1 and 2 of the Regulations.

Sincerely,

W. J. Usery, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Office of Federal Labor-Managcmcnt Relations 

WASHINGTON, D .C . 20210

4 - 3 - ' 7 3

Mr. Joseph Girlando 

National Representative 

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO r

2nd District Office *

300 Main Street 

Orange, New Jersey 07050

Re: Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

Fort Monmouth, N. J.

Case No. 32-3172 E.O.

Dear Mr. Girlando:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated March 26, 1973, 

in which you request review of the New York Regional Administrator's 

decision in the above named case.

On March 15, 1973, in a letter addressed to the President of 

Local 1904, AFGE, the Regional Administrator denied a motion by the 

latter that the petition filed by National Federation of Federal 

Employees, Local 476 in the subject case be dismissed.

Under the circumstances, your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's action in the matter is denied. Thus, as stated by the 

Assistant Secretary in Report on a Decision Number 8 (copy enclosed), 

no provision is made for filing a request for review of a Regional Administrator's refusal to dismiss a petition. Accordingly, your request in 

this matter is denied.

Sincerely,

Louis S. Wallerstein 

Director

274
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OP LABOR

APR 2 7 1973

Mr. George Tilton 

A t 'co rney

National Federation of O d A

Federal Employees C v H

1737 H Street, N<, W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of the Army

U. S. Army Signal Center and 

School

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-2861

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This is in connection with your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the above

named case.

It is found that the request for review in this matter is 

procedurally defective in that, contrary to the requirement of 

Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, a 

copy of the request for review was not served on the Regional 

Administrator.

Accordingly, the merits of the case have not been considered 

and your request,for review, seeking "reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

ApR * 7 1973

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr. George Tilton 

Attorney

National Federation of O C C

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D„ C. 20006

Re: Department of the Army

United States Army Satellite 

Communications Agency 

Fort Monmouth, N. J.

Case No. 32-2862

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This is in connection with your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the above 

named case.

It is found that the request for review in this matter is 

procedurally defective in that, contrary to the requirement of 

Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, a 

copy of the request for review was not served on the Regional 

Administrator.

Accordingly, the merits of the case have not been considered 

and your request for review, seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

275
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Gabriel P. Cardiello 

123 Gordon Street

Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660

Bear Mr* Cardiello:

2 6 6

Re: Military Ocean Terminal 

Bayonne, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3101

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator*s dismissal of your complaint in the above 

named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of 

Executive Order 11491.

The Regional Administrator's dismissal of the subject complaint, 

which was docketed by the Area Office on January 3, 1973, was based on 

the view that such complaint did not meet the requirements of Section 

203,2 of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary in that it was not 

filed within nine months of the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor 

practice.

The evidence discloses that an earlier version of your complaint 

was submitted to' the Area Office on November 13, 1972, which would have 

been timely under the Regulations. However, the November 13, 1972, 

complaint was not docketed by the Area Administrator because, in his 

opinion, it did not meet the standards required for a properly filed 

complaint under Section 203.3(a)(3) of the Regulations.

I conclude that under all the circumstances the complaint you 

attempted to file on November 13, 1972, although inartistically worded, 

meets the standards' specified by the Regulations and, therefore, should 

have been docketed on November 13, 1972. Accordingly, the Regional 

Administrator is directed to cause the November 13, 1972, complaint to 

be docketed and considered by the Area Office as of that date.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

^>33^

U .S . D l i P A K lM i: N i C)1‘ i - A o O R

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 I ,

APR 30 1973

Mr. Dolph David Sand 

Assistant to the Staff Counsel 

American Federation of Government

Kinployees, AFL-CIO' '

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N". W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Department of the Air Force

Headquarters, 4756th Air Force 

Base Group 

Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 

Case No. 42-2227 (CA)

Dear Mr. Sand:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

Department of the Air Force Headquarters, 4756th Air Force Group 

(Activity) violated Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 

11491, as amended.

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. The evidence 

establishes that the pre-complaint charge in the instant case is 

identical to the pre-complaint charge filed on June 6, 1972, which 

was settled informally on June 29, 1972, as a result of negotiations 

between the Local Union and the Activity, and which subsequently was 

withdrawn.

It is your contention that the charge was not settled properly 

because the Local Union lacked the authority to enter into a settlement with the Activity. However, the evidence establishes ;that the 

AFGE's instructions which accompanicd the charge specified!the Local 

Union as the party'with which the Activity should negotiate any informal settlement.' Moreover, the letter dated June 29, 1972, from 

Local Union President Moore advising the Respondent that the findings 

and recommendations of the joint fact finding panel were satisfactory 

to the AFGE appeared to meet the conditions set forth in National

276
- 2 -

Representative De Lisle's statement of June 14, 1972, regarding 

clearance through National Vice-President Garrison, Accordingly, 

there appears to be no merit to this contention.

Regarding your further contention that the withdrawal of the 

charge was made subject to the implementation of the settlement agreement and that such agreement was not implemented, thereby rendering 

the withdrawal invalid, such contention is unsupported by any evidence.

Under all of the circumstances, therefor^, it appears that the 

alleged violations of the Order contained in the instant complaint 

have been resolved informally. Moreover, in my view, (a reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's decision in this matter would contravene 

the policy of the Assistant Secretary^ as expressed in Section 203,2 

of the Regulations, to encourage parties to an unfair labor practice 

charge to resolve the matter informally, by creating uncertainty as to 

the finality of any settlement which they might reach. Thus, informal 

settlement efforts would be discouraged, and not encouraged, as 

intended.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J, Fasser, Jr, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A SH IN G T O N ’

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 80 1973’

Mr. James P„ Farrar 

Box 398

Town Hall Road, R. R. 3 

Belleville, Illinois 62221

268

Re: U. S. Department of the Army 

St„ Louis District 

Corps of Engineers 

Case No. 62-3525 (CA.)

Dear Mr. Farrar:

This is in connection with your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the above 

named case.

It is found that the request for review in this matter is 

procedurally defective. Contrary to the requirements of Section 

202.6(d) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, (1) the 

request for review was not received by the Assistant Secretary until 

after April 4, 1973, which was the last date upon which it could be 

received timely, as you were advised by the Regional Administrator, 

and (2) the request for review did not contain a statement of facts 

or reasons upon which it was based.

Under these circumstances, the merits of the case have, not 

been considered and your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

\ •

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr„ 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f T in : A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. DiiPAR'OF LABOR

APR 30 1973

Mr. Richard 0. Shave 

President, Local 943 

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

706 Augustine Drive 

Handsboro Station 

Gulfport, Mississippi 39501

269

Re: Department of the Air Force

Keesler Technical Training Center 

Case No. 41-3193 (CA)

Dear Mr. Shave:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the unfair labor practice 

complaint in the above named case alleging violations of Section 

i9(a)(1), (4) and (6).

I am in agreement with the Regional Administrator that.certain 

.aspects of the unfair labor practice charge and the complaint in this 

matter were filed untimely under the Rules and Regulations of the 

Assistant Secretary and must be dismissed for that reason. Thus, a 

review of the evidence reveals that certain of the alleged unfair labor 

practices herein occurred on October 31, 1971, that the unfair labor 

practice charge in this regard was filed on or about December 1, 1972, 

and that the complaint was filed on January 12, 1973.

Section 203.2 of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part 

that, "The charge must be filed within six (6) months of the occurrence 

of the alleged unfair labor practice", and that, "A complaint must be 

filed within nine (9) months of the occurrence of the alleged unfair 

labor practice . ; ." Under the facts herein, neither of these 

timeliness requirements has been met as to' those aspects of your 

complaint relating to the Activity's conduct on October 31, 1971. 

Moreover, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, X find that 

the Activity's conduct on November 22, 1972, in providing you.with 

a new position description without consulting with the exclusive 

bargaining representative, did not provide a reasonable basis for 

the complaint.

- 2 -

With respect to the 19(a)(4) aspect of your complaint, 1 am 

in agreement with the Regional Administrator that there is no evidence 

to support the allegation that you were disciplined or discriminated 

against because you filed a complaint or gave testimony under the Order. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint also must be dismissed.

Under the foregoing circumstances, your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the 

complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

278
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT Or LABOR

David J. Markman, Esq.

National Federation of Federal 9*70

Employees fc#U

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: U. S. Department of.Agriculture 

Agricultural Stabilization and 

Conservation Service 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Case No. 60-2151 (RO)

Dear Mr. Markman:

X have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Report and Findings On Objections issued by the Regional Administrator 

in connection with the rerun election conducted in the above entitled 

matter. In your request for review you seek to reverse the Regional 

Administrator's findings and recommendations on thirteen of the fifteen 

objections filed with the Area Administrator.

Section 202.20(b) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary 

provides, in pertinent part, that "The objecting party shall bear the 

burden of proof at all stages of the proceeding regarding all matters 

raised in its objections."

I conclude, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1633, failed to meet 

its prescribed burden of proof in support of the objections filed and 

that your request for review points to no facts which would require a 

different conclusion.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator’s Report and Findings On Objections is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

'S / ) i h £

Mr. Alan J. Whitney 

National Executive Director

National Association of Government 0 7 1

Employees 

1341 G Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Army and Air rorce Er-ohange Service 

Southeast Exchange Region Warehouse 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina 

Case No. 40-4365

Dear Mr. Whitney:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to conduct 

allegedly affecting the results of the election held on November 1,

1972.

I have given no consideration to Objection No. 1 as you have 

not questioned the Regional Administrator's dismissal of that 

Objection. The Regional Administrator's dismissal of your second 

objection was based on his conclusion that the radio spot announcement in question, sponsored by the American Federation of Government 

Employees (AFGE), contained a distortion of a fact which was too 

insubstantial to constitute campaign trickery warranting the setting 

aside of the election. X disagree with this conclusion. Where there 

is an allegation which may constitute a material misrepresentation of 

the truth made at a time which prevents the other party from replying 

effectively it is reasonable to infer that such conduct could have a 

significant impact on the election. In the instant case, it is 

reasonable to assume that the eleventh-hour assertion in the radio 

announcements that the President of the National Association of 

Government Employees, Kenneth Lyons, was accused by columnist 

Jack Anderson of having Mafia contacts could have had a significant 

impact on this election.

The AFGE compounded the situation by stating, in the same 

announcement, "Now that you know the truth . . . vote for honesty, 

and integrity . . . vote AFGE - AFL-CIO." The effect of this line, 

the "punch line" of the spot announcement, was to affix the imprimatur 

of truth on the unsupported allegations in the article linking 

Mr. Lyons with the Mafia. The foregoing circumstances require that 

I send the case back to the Regional Administrator for a rerun election.

279
Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your objections to the runoff 

election is granted and the Regional Administrator is directed to 

cause a rerun election to be conducted.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

J - - / 7 - I d

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O F F IC E O F T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Henry A. Webb

President, Local 1138

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO 0 7 0

Suite 203, 408 W. Main Street 

Po 0« Box 617 

Fairborn, Ohio 45324

Res United States Air Force

Aeronautical Systems Division 

Wright-Patterson AFBj Ohio 

Case No. 53-6147

Dear Mr. Webb:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional 

Administrator's Report and Findings overruling your objection to the 

election in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find no merit in 

your objection which'is based upon the fact that the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), was not supplied with a 

copy of a payroll list of September 19, 1972, which the Activity supplied 

to the Area Office at the letter's request. The facts show that a copy 

of this list was not requested by AFGE although it was made aware that the 

list had been requested by the Area Office. Moreover, the Activity provided AFGE with a payroll list as of July 21, 1972, which list was used in 

the calculation of its showing of interest. The evidence establishes also 

that the list of September 19, 1972, was not, as intimated in your request 

for review, the eligibility list which was used in the election. Thus, 

the list used in the election and approved by all of the parties was the 

payroll list of October 1, 1972.

As you have presented no evidence that AFGE was in any way prejudiced 

by its failure to receive a copy of the September 19 payroll list, or that 

the Activity was at fault in this respect, I find no merit-in this 

objection.

<K.

280
-2-

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings overruling your objection 

to the election is denied*

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

<2/ 7 /7 3

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Hr. Donald 0. Jolly O T X

C/o Payment Center 

2225 North 3rd Avenue 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Re: Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare 

Social Security Administration, 

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors 

Insurance Payment Center 

Birmingham, Alabama 

Case No. 40-4647 (CA)

Dear Hr. Jolly:

1 have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance Payment Center at 

Birmingham, Alabama violated Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive 

Order 11491, as amended.

Upon review of all of the evidence, I find that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. Thus, in the circumstances 

of this case, it is found that the Activity's dealings with Ernest 

Jackson, who had been designated as trustee by the American Federation 

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO(AFGE) to conduct the affairs of AFOE 

Local 2206, from August 18, 1972, through August 30, 1972, «ere not 

improper. In this connection, the evidence did not establish any 

attempt by the Activity either to control the internal affairs of 

Local 2206 or to avoid any bargaining obligations under the Order.

Accordingly, and noting also that at all times material herein, 

the National ATGE (National Council of Social Security Payment Center 

Locals) was the exclusive bargaining representative of the Activity's 

employees, your request for review seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint Is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

281
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S b c r b t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

< > - 7 - 7 3

Mr. George Tilton 

Attorney

National Federation of Federal 9*7A

Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Be: Dopartment of the Army

United States Army Signal Center and 

School.

Fort Monmouth, N. J.

Case No. 32-2861

Department of the Army

United States Army Satellite Communications 

Agency 

Fort Monmouth, N. J.

Case No. 32—2862

Dear Ur. Tilton:

I have considered carefully your request to reconsider the 

Assistant Secretary's rulings of April 27, .1973, denying your request 

for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaints 

in the above named cases.

As previously indicated, Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations 

of tho Assistant Secretary requires, among other things, that "Copies 

of the request for review shall be served on the Regional Administrator

and the other parties,--T" (emphasis added). Further, Section

202.6(d) provides that "a statement of service shall be filed with tho 

request for review." In my view, your request for reconsideration in 

the subject cases' raises no facts or Issues which would warrant a 

departure from the foregoing requirements.

Accordingly, and noting that your labor organization was notified, 

specifically of the service requirements of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations in the Regional Administrator's dismissal letters in these 

matters, your-request for reconsideration of the Assistant Secretary's 

rulings of April;27, 1973, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

June 15, 1973

Mr. Royal L. Sims 

National Vice President

American Federation of Government 275

Employees, AFL-CIO 

4742 North Broad Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19141

Re: General Services Administration

Region 3

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 20-3858 (R0)

Dear Mr. Sims:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's denial of the intervention of American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) in the above named case.

The Regional Administrator based his denial of your request to 

intervene upon his conclusion that this result was required by an application of the decision in U. S. Mint, Philadelphia, Pa., A/SLMR No. 45 

to the facts of the instant case. I disagree.

In A/SLMR No. 45, an incumbent non-guard labor organization 

(AFGE) was not permitted to appear on the ballot in a situation where 

a guard labor organization sought to "carve out" a unit of guards from 

the existing mixed unit of guards and non-guards for which AFGE had 

been accorded exclusive recognition in 1966 under Executive Order 10988. 

The Assistant Secretary also determined in A/SLMR No. 45 that an appropriate unit of guards may be "carved out" of a mixed unit of guards 

and non-guards granted exclusive recognition under E. 0. 10988. There 

was no indication in that case that an inappropriate unit of guards 

may be "carved out" of a mixed unit of guards and non-guards. In the 

instant case, the AFGE has raised issues regarding the appropriateness 

of the guard unit sought by International Federation of Federal Police, 

the Petitioner herein. Under these circumstances, it is concluded that 

issues as to the appropriateness of the unit sought herein properly could 

be raised by AFGE which had timely intervened in this matter.

282
- 2 -

Accordingly, the request for review is granted and the case is 

remanded to the Regional Administrator who is directed to grant the 

request for intervention by AFGE.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

6/4 I j 13

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O F F IC E O F T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Anton E. SperlingChairman

Litigation Committee

American Federation of Government

Employees 276

AFL-CIO, Local 1904 

nox 231

Eatontown, New Jersey 07724

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Maintenance Directorate 

Ft. Monmouth, N. J.

Case No* 32-3169 E.O.

Dear Mr. Sperling:

This is in connection with your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint in the above 

named case.

It is found that the request for review in this matter is 

procedurally defective. Contrary to the requirement of Section 

203.7(c) and 202.6(d) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, 

the request for review was not received by the Assistant Secretary, 

until after May 22, 1973, which was the last date on which it could 

have been received timely, as you were advised by the Regional 

Administrator. The telegram dated May 22, 1973, by which you attempted 

to establish timeliness of the request for review, was, likewise, not 

received until after May 22, 1973.

Under these circumstances, the merits of the case have not been 

considered and your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

283
L I'yJ'hl O f f i c e or t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Michael J. Massimlno 

President, Local 1340

National Federation of 0 7 7

Federal Employees » /

P i 0 . B o x 8 6

Pomona, New Jersey 08240

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

National Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Center 

Atlantic City, N. J.

Case No. 32-2926 E.O.

Dear Mr. Massimlno:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the 

above named case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(6) of Executive 

Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Acting negional Administrator, I find 

that further proceedings on the instant 19(a)(6) complaint are 

unwarranted. Thus, for the reasons cited by the Acting Regional 

Administrator, I find that the Activity herein was not obligated to 

consult, confer, or negotiate with tho NFFE regarding the showing to 

its managers on May 18, 19 and 22, 1972, of a video tape concerning: 

drug abuse. Nor do I consider a contrary result required by the fact 

that the video tape ultimately was shown to employees.

Further, for the reasons cited by tho Acting negional Administrator, I find that the Activity's failure to invite NFFE's 

participation in the Equal Employmont Opportunity Film Festival 

sponsored by the Federal Executive Association on Equal Employment 

Opportunity did not violate Section 19(a)(6) of the Order.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of thn 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint is denied

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

- M il*

O f f i c e o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPAkiM ENi OF LABOR

■-^3

Mr. George Tilton 

Staff Attorney

National. Federation of 0 7 0

Federal Employees £ f O

1737 H Street, N.,W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of Incerior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

White Shield School 

Ft. Berthold Agency, N. D.

Cas.e No. 60-3232 (CA)

Dear Mr. Tilton:

1 have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your amended complaint alleging 

violations of Section 19(a)(1), (2) and (5) of Executive Order 11491, 

as amended*

In dismissing the complaint, the Regional Administrator found 

that the Complainant had failed to fulfill the burden of proving that 

the reassignment of Mr. K. W. Simons from the White Shield School to 

another location by the Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(Activity) was illegally or improperly motivated.

In your request for review, you state that "essentially" the 

dismissal was based on the grounds that Complainant failed to provide 

sufficient evidence to sustain the complaint. From this you proceed 

to the conclusion that the Regional Administrator was thereby stating 

a requirement that the Complainant must "plead and prove evidence in 

his complaint." In this respect, you misread the decision of the 

Regional Administrator.

Contrary to the position you take in the request for review, 

it was not the province of the Area Administrator to detail the nature 

and amount of evidence which would have been required to support the 

coa-plaint and to formulate a prima facie case. Early in the administration of Executive Order 11491, the Assistant Secretary described 

the investigatory functionsjofi the Area Administrators in Report No.

24 (copy enclosed). In substMice, Report No. 24 states that "the 

investigation of complaints by Area Administrators is limited essentially 

to consideration of the report of investigation by the parties which 

must be filed with the complaint."

284
As pointed out by the Regional Administrator, the burden of 

proof rests at all stages of the proceeding with the Complainant. I 

agree with his conclusion that under all the circumstances the 

Complainant herein failed to sustain the burden of proving, at this 

stage of the proceedings, that a reasonable basis for the complaint 

exists which warrants the issuance of a notice of hearing.

Accordingly, as no reasonable basis for the complaint was 

provided, your request for review seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jri 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

7 3

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O FFIC E OF TH E A SSIST A N T SE C R E T A R Y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Michael J. Masslmino 

President, Local 1340

National Federation of 0 7 Q

Federal Employees *

P. 0. Box 86 1

Pomona, New Jersey 08240

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

National Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Center 

Atlantic City, N. J.

Case No. 32-2927

Dear Mr. Masaiaino:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the subject 

case alleging a violation of Section 13(a)(6) of the Executive Order.

I have concluded that a reasonable basis for the complaint 

exists. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator is directed to 

reinstate the complaint and issue a notice of hearing.

Among the issues which should be explored at the hearing are 

the following:

1. Did the Activity herein have an obligation to 

meet and confer in good faith with its employees' 

exclusive representatives concerning the formulation 

and implementation of the "NAFEC Position Management 

and Average Grade Control Plan of Action July 1972"?

2; If then were an obligation to meet and confer in 

this matter, did the Activity fulfill its obligation 

on July 26, 1972, based on its meeting with its employees' 

exclusive representatives?

3. Did the Activity's subsequent offer on August 22,

1972, to meet and confer with its employees' exclusive 

representatives concerning the Plan, cure any possible 

violation of Section 19(a)(6) In this matter?

Sincerely,

Paul J;. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

285
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S k c r b t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr, Michael J, Masslmino 

President, Local 1340

National Federation of O Q A

Federal Employees AiCjU

P. 0. Box 86

Pomona, New Jersey 08240

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

National Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Center 

Atlantic City, N. J.

Case No. 32-3012

Dear Mr. Masslmino:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the 

above named case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(6) of Executive 

Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, I find 

that further proceedings on the instant 19(a)(6) complaint are 

unwarranted. Thus, for the reasons cited by the Acting Regional 

Administrator, I find that the Activity herein was not obligated to 

continue negotiations during the pendency of an RA petition which 

raised a question concerning representation. Moreover, it was noted 

that subsequent to the dismissal of the RA petition, the evidence 

establishes that negotiations were resumed and an agreement reached.

Under these circumstances, your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your 

complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

L/y$/7.3 O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

'%TlS.O* *

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

ilr. Michael J. Massimino 

President, Local 1340

National Federation of Federal oo-l

Employees 4.01

P. 0. Box 86 

Pomona, New Jersey 08240

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

National Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Center 

Atlantic City, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3071 E. 0.

Dear Mr. Massimino:

I have considered carefully your roquest for review of the .

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint in the 

above named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1), (5) and 

(6) of Executive Order 11491.

Under all of tho circumstances, I have concluded that a reasonable 

basis for the complaint oxist3 and, accordingly, the case is remanded 

to the Regional Administrator for reinstatement of the complaint and 

tho issuance of a notice of hearing.

Among the issues which should bo explored at the hearing are 

the following:

1. Wore the discussions of August 17 and 23, 1972, between 

Mrs. Jones and the Activity's supervisory and management 

officials "formal discussions" within the meaning of Section 

10(e) of the Order?

2. Is the Assistant Secretary's decision in U. S. Army Headquarters, Fort Jackson Laundry Facility. A/SLMR No. 242 

controlling in the subject case?

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

286
C/rth-s

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR / C . * '

O p p i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y s . r\r-.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 & g g j

Mr, Gerald I. Sommer 

Staff Counsel

American Federation of 28;

Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: U. S. Naval Sta-ion

Newport, Rhode Island 

Case No. 31-6127 E.O.

Dear Mr. Sommer:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the intervention of American 

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) in the above 

named case.

The Regional Administrator based his dismissal of your intervention request upon his conclusion that such result was required by 

an application of the Assistant Secretary's decision in U. S. Mint. 

Philadelphia, Pa., A/SLMR No. 45, to the facts of the subject case. I 

disagree.

In A/SLMR No. 45, an incumbent non-guard labor organization was 

not permitted to appear on the ballot in a situation where a guard labor 

organization sought to "carve out" a unit of guards from the existing 

mixed unit of guards and non-guards, for which the non-guard labor 

organization had been accorded exclusive recognition under Executive 

Order 10988. However, the decision in that case did not deal with the 

question of the representative status of the guards in the event that 

they should vote against exclusive representation by the guard labor 

organization. In the instant proceeding, the AFGE has specifically 

raised this issue among others. It is concluded that this question 

could properly be raised by the AFGE, which had filed a timely request 

for intervention in this matter, and that the matter can best be 

developed through a hearing or an appropriate stipulation of facts by 

the parties to be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for his 

determination.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the request for review is 

granted and the case is remanded to the Regional Administrator who is 

directed to grant the AFGE's request for intervention and to issue a 

notice of hearing or obtain an appropriate stipulation by the parties 

for submission to the Assistant Secretary.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 5, 1973

Mr. Joseph Girlando 

National Representative 

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local. 1904 

300 Main Street 

Orange, New Jersey 07050

Re: Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3172 (R0)

Dear Mr. Girlando:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the intervention of 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1904 

(AFGE) in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, and based 

on his reasoning, I find that dismissal of the AFGE's intervention in 

this matter was warranted in view of its failure to submit an adequate 

showing of interest within ten (10) days after the posting of the 

Notice of Petition as required by Section 202.5(c) of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations. Moreover, no circumstances were considered 

to be present which would warrant granting the AFGE's untimely 

request for an extension of time in which to file an adequate showing 

of interest. Thus, the evidence reveals that AFGE submitted a showing 

of interest during the posting period, and although it was advised 

by the Area Office before the end of the posting period that such 

showing of interest was inadequate, it did not request an extension 

of time to submit an additional showing until after the posting period 

had expired and after it had been advised that its intervention would 

be dismissed unless withdrawn.

Accordingly, under all the circumstances, your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your intervention is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEi'ARTMii.N , OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

JUL 9 1973

Kr. Earl Roland Brees 284

10103 Towhee Avenue 

Adelphi, Maryland 20783

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-3703 (CA)

Dear Mr. Brees:

Your request for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your complaint alleging violations of Sections 19(a)(1) and (4) 

against the Office of Economic Opportunity (Agency) in the above-entitled 

matter has been considered carefully.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I conclude that 

the issuance of a Notice of Hearing in this matter is not appropriate 

under the circumstances present herein. Thus, your complaint does 

not comply with the requirements of Section 203.2 of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations which provides:

"A complaint must be filed within nine (9) months of 

the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practice 

or within sixty (60) days of the service of a 

respondent's written final decision on the charging 

party, whichever is the shorter period of time."

Ir. this regard, your complaint was filed on September 6, 1972. The 

lust action taken by the Agency against you occurred on November 12,

1971, when it refused to allow you to withdraw your resignation. I 

find therefore that your complaint was filed more than nine months 

subsequent to the action of the Agency and thereby failed to satisfy 

the timeliness requirements of Section 203.2(b)(3) of the Regulations.

Further, it appears that Section 19(d) of the Order precludes 

my taking jurisdiction over this matter. Thus, Section 19(d) states, 

in pertinent part:

"Issues which can properly be raised under an appeals 

procedure may not be raised under this section."

288
- 2 -

By your own admission, the subject matter of your complaint against the 

Agency has been the basis of several appeals filed by you with the Civil 

Service Commission. Under these circumstances, I find that Section 19(d) 

precludes me from asserting jurisdiction in this case.

Finally, even assuming that jurisdiction would be asserted in ■ 

this matter, it appears that you have failed to sustain your burden of 

establishing a reasonable basis for the instant 19(a)(1) and (4) complaint. 

Section 203.5(c) of the Regulations provides that the complainant shall 

bear the burden of proof at all stages of the proceedings regarding 

matters alleged in the complaint. In my view, the evidence submitted by 

you during the investigation herein failed to establish«£hat any action 

by the Agency against you was predicated upon your exercise of rights 

granted in Section 1(a) of the Order or was predicated upon your having 

filed a complaint or given testimony under the Order,

As to your contention that the Agency did not supply you with 

copies of its documents submitted to the Area Office, the Regional 

Administrator will provide you with a list of £he Agency's submissions 

in this matter.

Accordingly, under all of the circumstances, your request for 

review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of 

your complaint alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (4) of the 

Order is denied.

Sincerely,

)

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Irving I. Geller 

General Counsel 

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20006

’JUL 9 1973

285

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Ft. Monmoutht New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3164 E.O.

Dear Mr. Geller:

X have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the unfair labor practice 

complaint in the above-named case, alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) of Executive Order 11491.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find that 

further proceedings on the instant complaint are unwarranted based 

on the rationale of the Assistant Secretary in A/SLMR Nos. 139 and 

256. Those cases explicate the policy that official time must be 

accorded to a necessary union witness testifying in a formal unit 

determination hearing, but need not be accorded to employee union 

representatives present at such hearings in other capacities. In 

this regard, it is conceded that the employee involved herein did 

not appear as a witness in the unit determination hearing in Case 

No. 32-2468(R0). Further, no evidence was presented which would 

provide a basis for the other violations of Section 19(a) alleged 

in the complaint.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint alleging 

violation of Section 19(a)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) of Executive 

Order 11491 is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. George Tilton 

Staff Attorney 

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of Interior 

Washington, D* C.

Case No. 22-3693 (CA)

Dear Mr. Tilton:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

the Department of Interior (Agency) violated Sections 19(a)(2) and 

(6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

You allege that the Agency violated the Executive Order by:

(1) revealing bad faith in meeting its obligation to consult and 

confer with the NFFE by not providing a written copy of the final 

proposal for expanding the Indian preference policy prior to the 

June 21, 1972, meeting, requested by the Agency, at which time the 

changes were discussed with the NFFE; (2) approving the proposed policy 

on June 22, 1972, thereby allegedly denying the NFFE the opportunity 

to make written comment on suggested changes in the proposed policy; 

and (3) informing, via telegram, Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel 

of the policy change without prior consultation, the content of such 

telegram allegedly implying also the NFFE's approval of the change.

Under ail the circumstances herein, I conclude, in agreement with the 

Regional Administrator, that further proceedings on the instant complaint 

are unwarranted.

With regard to the 19(a)(2) allegation, the evidence establishes 

that the subject policy change applied uniformly to all Bureau of 

Indian Affairs personnel, the membership of the'. NFFE was shown to have 

been comprised of both Indians and non-Indians, and the questioned 

language in the subject telegram was a factual statement, neither 

imp lying nor stating that the NFFE agreed with or consented to the 

policy change. Under these circumstances, I find an absence of 

evidence of any Agency action which could be construed as encouraging 

or discouraging membership in the NFFE by discrimination in regard to 

hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment©

JUL 9 1973

286

- 2 -

With respect to the 19(a)(6) allegation, I find that the NFFE 

vas notified of the proposed change in policy through at least one 

earlier meeting with the Agency in December 1971, and that the Agency 

requested to, and did, consult with the NFFE on June 21, 1972. In 

addition, the file fails to disclose evidence that the Agency, at any 

time* refused to consult on the proposed policy pursuant to an express 

request by the NFFE. Moreover, there is no evidence that at the 

June 21, 1972, meeting the NFFE indicated that it needed, or requested 

specifically, more time to examine the document or to submit its views 

in writing prior, to the implementation of the proposed policy. On 

the basis of the above, I find that the NFFE failed to sustain its 

burden of proof in supporting its 19(a)(6) allegation.

Accordingly, your request for review of the Regional Administrator's dismissal is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

290
O f f ic e o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y .c

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 % •

d.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Earl Roland Brees 

10103 Towhee Avenue 

Adelphi, Maryland 20783

287

Re: American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, and 

Local 2677, AFGE, AFL-CIO 

(Office ^f Econ^jnic Opportunity) 

Case No. 22-3702 (CO)

Dear Mr. Brees;

Your request for review of the Regional Administrator*s partial 

dismissal of your complaint alleging violations of Sections 19(b)(1),

(2), (5), and 19(c) of Executive Order 11491, as amended, by American 

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) and its Local 2677 

(Local) in the above-entitled matter has been considered carefully.

In his letter of March 23, 1973, the Regional Administrator 

found that there was a reasonable basis for the complaint that the Local 

had engaged in conduct violative of Section 19(b)(1) and 19(c) and, 

accordingly, he informed you of his intention to issue a Notice of 

Hearing with regard to those allegations, absent a settlement of the 

matter. However, you also were informed that because'1 of a lack of 

evidence, the Regional Administrator was dismissing the Section 19(b)(2) 

and 19(b)(5) allegations of the complaint against the Local, and, 

further, based on procedural deficiencies, he was dismissing all 

allegations of your complaint against the AFGE.

With regard to the Section 19(b)(2) and 19(b)(5) allegations 

against the Local, under all the circumstances disclosed herein, I 

agree with the action of the Regional Administrator, In essence, you 

are asserting that the Local induced, or attempted to induce, the Office 

of Economic Opportunity (Agency) to coerce you in the exercise of your 

rights under the Order; that in doing so, the Local conspired with the 

Agency to discharge you in violation of Sections 19(a)(1) and 19(a)(2), 

You further assert that the Local discriminated against you with regard 

to the terms or conditions of membership based upon your race. However, 

during the investigation, you failed to submit any evidence.to support 

these assertions beyond the bare facts that the Agency attempted to 

discharge you, and that, thereafter, the Local refused to admit you to 

membership, or to assist you in your appeals from the adverse action of 

the Agency. In my view, these facts alone, do not constitute sufficient 

evidence to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint within the

- 2 -

meaning of Section 203.8 of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Section 203.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations provides that 

the complainant bears the burden of proof at all stages of the proceedings 

regarding matters alleged in its complaint. I find that you have, failed 

to sustain your burden of proof with regard to the 19(b)(2) and 19(b)(5) 

allegations of your complaint and that, therefore, such allegations must 

be dismissed.

In dismissing your complaint against the AFGE, the Regional 

Administrator based his action on a finding that you failed to comply 

with the provisions of Section 203.2(a)(1) of the Assistant Secretary’s 

Regulations which provides that any party desiring to £ile a complaint 

of unfair labor practices under Section 19 of the Order must first file 

a charge alleging the unfair labor practice with the party against whom 

the chargo is directed. He found also that you had failed to comply with 

the provisions of Section 203.2(b)(1), which provides that such charge 

must be filed at least thirty days prior to the filing of a complaint.

In reaching his findings in this regard, the Regional Administrator noted 

that by letter dated May 16, 1972, addressed to the Washington Area 

Administrator, you alleged certain facts concerning the failure of the 

Local and the AFGE to admit you to membership, and their failure to 

represent you in further proceedings against the Agency. The Regional 

Administrator found that there was no evidence that this letter was 

ever served upon the Local or the AFGE and, therefore, that such letter 

could not satisfy the requirements of Section 203.2 of the Regulations.

The Regional Administrator further found that by letter dated July 24,

1972, you perfected service of a charge against the Local, but that prior 

to the amendment to the complaint naming the AFGE as a party respondent, 

you had failed to serve the AFGE with a charge.

I find that you did submit a statement of service of the May 16,

1972, letter, showing that you served both the Local and the AFGE with 

copies thereof. Moreover, in submissions to the Area Office by the 

AFGE, it was admitted that a copy of this letter was received. Further,

I found that, although your letter of May 16, 1972, failed to specify 

the sections of the Order alleged to have been violated, the allegations 

were of such specificity that all parties were put on notice as to their 

nature. Thus, contrary to the findings of the Regional Administrator,

I find that you did comply with the requirements of Section 203,2 of 

the Regulations, As the Regional Administrator did not pass upon 

whether a reasonable basis for the complaint existed against the AFGE,

I shall remand that portion of the complaint to the Regional Administrator 

for further consideration and appropriate action.

291
- 3 -

Accordingly, your request for review of the Regional Administrator's partial dismissal of your complaint in the above-entitled 

matter is granted in part, and denied in part, and the case is remanded 

to .the Regional Administrator with the directions to reinstate the 

complaint against AFGE and, after further consideration take appropriate 

action.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr* 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

July 19, 1973

Hr. Gerald I. Sommer 

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1325 Massachusetts Ave., N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Naval Air Rework Facility 

Naval Air Station 

Pensacola, Florida 

Case No. 42-2233 (CA)

Dear Mr. Sommer:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the.Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint of 

the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1960 

(AFGE) in the instant case alleging - that the Naval Air Rework Facility,

Naval Air Station at Pensacola, Florida violated Sections 19(a)(1) and 

(6) of the Executive Order, as amended.

The evidence establishes that the AFGE was afforded the opportunity to serve on the Environmental Pay Review Committee which was direct-- 

ed by the Activity to conduct a study on the propriety of continuing environmental pay for the electroplaters and that it initially participated 

in the deliberations which led the Committee to recommend the discontinuance of such environmental pay. The evidence further establishes that 

the AFGE voluntarily terminated its participation on the Committee and, 

although it was aware of the Committee's report and recommendations for 

some six weeks prior to the time the Activity implemented the recommendations, 

it failed to request the Activity to bargain on the propriety of continuing 

the environmental pay. Under these circumstances, and noting also that 

questions of contract interpretation (see, in this regard, Report on a 

Ruling of the Assistant Secretary, Report No. 49, copy attached), I find, 

in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that further proceedings 

are unwarranted.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the -complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

288

292
7/23/73

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Ms. Elizabeth A. Davis 

Route I, Box 123 

Quinton, Alabama 35285

Re: Department of Health, Education and 

Welfare

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors 

Insurance Payment Center 

Birmingham, Alabama 

Case No. 40-4707 (CA)

Dear Ms. Davis:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Payment Center at Birmingham, 

Alabama (Activity) violated Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive 

Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. Thus, it is concluded that the Activity^ actions in granting the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2206 (AFGE), the right to have an observer 

present during the informal stages of its grievance procedure was not 

inconsistent with the provisions of the Executive Order. In this connection, it is noted that Section 13(a) of the Order, among other things, 

affords an exclusive bargaining representative the opportunity to be present at the adjustment of grievances raised by employees under a negotiated grievance procedure. There is nothing in the Order which prohibits 

an Activity from according a similar opportunity to an exclusive bargaining representative in the processing of grievances under an agency grievance procedure.

Accordingly, and as there is no evidence that the Activity engaged in any independent acts which constituted either interference 

with your rights under the Order or improper assistance to the AFGE 

within the meaning of Section 19(a)(3) of the Order, and no evidence 

to support your contention that the Regional Administrator decided 

the merits of the case without fully and fairly considering all relevant evidence, your request for review seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

7/24/73

Mr. Benjamin C. White 

3008 S. E. 22nd Circle 

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

Re: Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area 

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma 

Case No. 63-4363 (CA)

Dear Mr. White:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your amended 

complaint in the above named case alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1) of Executive Order 11491.

I concur with the Regional Administrator's finding that no 

proper basis for the complaint has been established in that the facts 

presented by you do not indicate violations of Section 19(a)(1) of 

the Executive Order within the period prescribed in Section 203.2(b)(3) 

of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations. You have therefore failed 

to sustain your burden of proof of the allegations of your complaint 

as required by Section 203.5(c) of the Regulations.

Although you have expressed dissatisfaction over the manner in 

which your complaint was handled by personnel of the Dallas Area Office 

and have implied that attempts were made to give preferential consideration to the Activity, I am unable to find evidence of any improper 

conduct on the part of the personnel assigned to your case or of any 

other irregularities with respect to the processing of your complaint.

Accordingly, and noting also that you failed to make service 

of your request for review on the Regional Administrator and the Ac- - 

tivity as required by Section 203.7(c) and 202.6(d) of the Regulations, 

your request for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

293
73

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 .

Mr. George Tilton 

Staff Attorney 

National'Federation of 

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: "Internal Revenue Service 

Newark District .Office 

Case No. 32-3213 E.O.

Dear Mr..Tilton:

X have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your 

complaint in the above named case alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1) of Executive Order 11491.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that his dismissal of 

the complaint in this matter, alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1) 

of Executive Order 11491, was correct and in accordance with the 

interpretation given by the Federal Labor Relations Council (FLRC) 

to the applicable provisions of the Order.

As may be noted from Question No. 8 of the enclosed copy of 

the Information Announcement of the FLRC dated March 22, 1972, Section 

13(a) of Executive Order 11491 has been interpreted by the Council 

prohibiting an employee from choosing a representative other than the 

exclusive representative when presenting a grievance over the interpretation and application of the agreement unless the agreement makes 

a provision for other representation. Since the negotiated agreement 

in the subject case between the Activity and the National Association 

of Internal Revenue Employees (NAIRE) does not provide for other 

representation, and Mr. Lipton's grievance involved the interpretation 

or application of the agreement, it is evident that Mr. Lipton did noL 

have the’right to have his own attorney represent him in the processing 

of his grievance under the negotiated agreement.

- 2 -

Accordingly, and noting the absence of any procedural irregularities in the processing of the complaint which would warrant a 

contrary result, I find that the Acting Regional Administrator's 

dismissal of the subject complaint was correct and, consequently, your 

request for review seeking reversal of such action must be denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Passer., Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of La£or

294
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

August 1, 1975

292 Mr. Anton E. Sperling 

70 Reeds Road

New Shrewsburg, New Jersey 07724

Re: Secretary of the Army 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-3767 (CA)

Dear Hr. Sperling:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the 

above named case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1), (2) and 

(4) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, I find 

that further proceedings on your complaint are unwarranted. Thus, 

for the reasons cited by the Acting Regional Administrator, I find that 

a reasonable basis.for the complaint was not established in that there 

was no evidence that the Agency iterfered with your rights assured 

by the Executive Order or discriminated against you based on union 

membership considerations or because you filed a complaint or gave 

testimony under the Order.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your 

complaint, is denied. '

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 2, 1973

Louis P. Poulton, Esquire 

Associate General Counsel 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO 

1300 Connecticut Avenue 

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Department of the Navy 

Naval Weapons Station 

Yorktown, Virginia 

Case No. 22-2881 (RO)

Dear Mr. Poulton:

.1 have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's action setting aside the runoff 

election in the subject case.

The Acting Regional Administrator concluded that the runoff election 

held on February 23, 1973, should be set aside based on an objection filed 

by Local R4-1, National Association of Government Employees (NAGE). In its 

objection, the NAGE alleged that:

"On Thursday, February 22, 1973, the IAM distributed a 

campaign flyer entitled EDITORIAL. This document.alleges 

that the NAGE raised $38,000 to erect a memorial to 258 

persons who died on the U. S. S. Thresher. The document 

goes on to accuse the NAGE of spending the money for 

'administrative purposes' and hiring a New York City firm 

to bilk Navy Department employees."

The NAGE stated that these allegations were totally false and that at no 

time had the NAGE raised $38,000 to build a memorial. It contends that 

fund raising efforts were initiated by a Navy Officer in conjunction with 

the New York firm and that, ultimately, it was the NAGE which discovered 

the fraudulent nature of the firms's activities and which revealed that 

fact to the Department of the Navy.

The Acting Regional Administrator determined that the campaign flyer 

at issue which was actually distributed on February 21, 1973, did not 

contain material which could be recognized by the employees as puffing or 

exaggeration; that there was no evidence of the truth of the contents of

293
- 2 -

the flyer, and that the NAGE did not have an adequate opportunity to reply 

to the allegations contained in the flyer.

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the conclusion of the 

Acting Regional Administrator. Thus, the evidence does not establish that 

the eligible vofers at the facility involved herein had any independent 

knowledge with respect to the subject matter of the flyer in question which 

would have enabled them adequately to evaluate independently the assertions 

contained in the flyer. Further, the evidence does not establish that the 

NAGE was afforded a reasonable opportunity to reply to the assertions contained in the flyer prior to the election. Particularly noted in this 

regard were the facts that the distribution of the flyer in question commenced 

only two days prior to the holding of the runoff election and that there 

were 1,080 eligible voters working on three shifts at the facility involved 

herein.

The fact that the identical campaign flyer allegedly was utilized in 

other prior elections involving the NAGE was not considered to require a 

contrary result. Thus, the other prior elections referred to by the IAM 

were not conducted at the instant facility and did not involve the same NAGE 

local and local officials as were involved in the subject case.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's report and findings is 

denied and the Regional Administrator is directed to cause a rerun election 

to be conducted.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

8-2-73

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Raymond J. Malloy, Esquire 

Associate Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 234

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Re: Department of the Army 

v United States Army Base Command

USARBCO, Okinawa 

Case No. 22-3840 (CA)

Dear Mr. Malloy:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

alleging that the United States Army Base Command (Activity) violated 

Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Based upon a full review of the evidence submitted, I find, in 

agreement with the Regional Administrator that, absent withdrawal, the 

complaint should be dismissed. Viewing the complaint as consisting of 

two parts, the first would involve those events which occurred during 

the period from January to May 15, 1972. In this regard, you allege 

in your complaint and in your request for review that the Activity 

failed to notify Local 1678, AFGE, timely of the impending changes in 

requirements for marine personnel and equipment which occurred both prior 

and subsequent to the May 15, 1972, reversion of control of the Island of 

Okinawa from the United States to Japan. In bargaining over the impact 

on unit employees of the subject changes, i.e., replacement of civilian 

employee crews on two tugboats with military personnel and contracting 

out of work in Naha Port, which had been performed previously by civilian employees, to Japanese private firms. It appears from the evidence 

that prior to May 15, 1972, the Activity was having a difficult time in 

its attempts to learn the details of what the Government of Japan and 

the City of Naha's requirements would be upon reversion and, thus, the 

Activity could riot make firm post-reversion plans for its personnel and 

equipment. However, it is undisputed that the Activity informed individual union members concerning the "unofficial" information which it 

had received regarding the impending reversion and there is no evidence

296
- 2 -

that at any given point in time did the Activity withhold available information. In these circumstances and absent the presentation of sufficient 

evidence by you which would support the above allegations, I agree with the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of this portion of your complaint.

With respect to the second portion of the complaint which covers 

events occuring during the period May 15, 1972, to January 5, 1973, when 

the complaint was filed, you allege that your sole concern during that 

period could only have been bargaining over the impact of the changes of 

May 1 and May 15, 1972, on unit employees. In addition, you allege that 

the Activity failed and refused to bargain during this period over such 

impact, bargaining would have involved specifically the Activity's concept plan for cutting back and phasing down marine personnel and equipment requirements. In this connection, the following facts were noted:

(1) that reduction in force notices were not issued to any employees in 

the unit until August 4, 1972; (2) that approximately six weeks prior to 

the actual implementation of changes which affected unit employees, i.e., 

the August 4, 1972, reduction in force notices, the Activity invited Local 1678, AFGE’s representatives to consult and to make comments on its 

concept plan; and (3) that Local 1678's letter of June 24, 1972, to the 

Activity’s Commanding General constituted a refusal to comment on the 

concept plan as requested.

In your request for review, you contend that the Regional Administrator's reliance on U. S. Department of Air Force, Norton Air Force Base, 

A/SLMR No. 261, as support for his dismissal was in error in that the 

Norton case is "clearly inapposite and distinguishable." In agreement 

with the Regional Administrator, I find that the Norton case is generally 

applicable to the facts in your case in that actual implementation of the 

Activity's concept plan did not occur until approximately six weeks after 

Local 1678, AFGE's representatives received a copy of the concept plan 

and were invited to comment upon it. In this regard, no evidence was 

presented to show that Local 1678, AFGE made a clearcut request to bargain over impact at any time. For these reasons, I agree with the Regional Administrator's decision that further proceedings under Section 

19(a)(6) of the Order are unwarranted with respect to this portion of 

your complaint.

Finally, you contend in your request for review that the Regional 

Administrator overlooked a portion of the subject complaint which alleged 

that the Activity violated the terms of the parties' negotiated agreement 

with respect to Local 1678, AFGE's right under the agreement to at least 

45 days notice prior to any contracting out which displaces U.S. citizen

- 3 -

employees. The evidence establishes that the contract clause in question 

provides for 45 days notice "unless prevented by mitigating or emergency 

considerations . . . ." In this connection, it should be noted that in 

Report on a Ruling of the Assistant Secretary No. 49 (copy enclosed) the 

Assistant Secretary stated that "... where a complaint alleges as an 

unfair labor practice, a disagreement over the interpretation of an existing collective bargaining agreement which provides a procedure for resolving the disagreement, he will not consider the problem in the context of 

an unfair labor practice but will leave, the parties to their remedies under 

their collective bargaining agreement." Under the circumstances of this case 

I find that the rationale contained in this Report is applicable to your contention that the Activity's conduct herein violated such agreement.

Based on the foregoing, I agree with the Regional Administrator that 

the evidence is insufficient to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint. Accordingly, the request for review seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

297
8-2-73

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Miss Elsie M. Clifford 

5217 Horrocks Street 

Philadelphia, Pa. 19124

295

Mrs. Margaret M. Seitzinger 

709 Park Avenue 

Lindenwold* N.J. 08021

Re: GSA, Region III, ADTS 

Philadelphia, Pa.

...... .Case No. 20-3986 (CA)

Dear Miss Clifford and Mrs. Seitzinger:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint 

in the above named. ;case-.alleging, violation of Section 19(a)(4) of Executive Order 11491.

Under all of the circumstances, I am in agreement with the Regional Administrator that the evidence you supplied failed to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint.

Your complaint, as amended, alleges that the GSA, Region III,

ADTS (Activity) violated Section 19(a)(4) of the Order, which prohibits 

discrimination against an employee because such employee filed a complaint, or gave testimony under the Order. The basis for your complaint 

appears to be that the Activity discriminated against you by refusing 

your applications for annual leave because other employees, junior to 

you in seniority, had previously been granted annual leave for the same 

time period you were seeking. You allege that this conduct was contrary 

to a past practice followed by the Activity under which employees were 

given the right to select their vacation periods in the order of their 

seniority.

The evidence does not establish that either of you filed a complaint or gave testimony under the Order prior to the filing of the 

.instant complaint. Therefore, it is clear that the denial of your

* leave-requests‘b y 'the .Activity was not'for the .purpose of discriminating against you because you gave testimony in proceedings under the 

Order, or had recourse to the procedures under the Order. Thus, I

- 2 -

find that there is no reasonable basis for the complaint under Section 

19(a)(4) of the Order. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Activity’s 

conduct herein was based on union membership considerations. Therefore, 

there was no basis to conclude that the Activity had, in any way, interfered with your rights under the Executive Order.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking reversal of. the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

298
U .S. DEPARTM ENT O F LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

0 / 7 3

Ms. Mary T. Waldrop K

Post Office Box 5761 

Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Re: Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare 

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors 

Insurance Payment Center 

Birmingham, Alabama 

Case No. 40-4708 (CA)

Dear Ms. "raldrop:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

the Bureau of Itetirement and Survivors Payment Center at Birmingham, 

Alabama (Activity) violated Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive 

Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. Thus, it is concluded that the 

Activity's action in granting the American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2206 (AFGE), the right to have an observer 

present during the informal stages of its grievance procedure was 

no* inconsistent with the provisions of the Executive Order. In this 

connection, it is noted that Section 13(a) of the Order, among other 

things, affords an exclusive bargaining representative the opportunity 

to be present at the adjustment of grievances raised by employees 

under a negotiated grievance procedure. There is nothing in the 

Order which prohibits an Activity from according a similar opportunity 

to an exclusive bargaining representative in the processing of 

grievances under an agency grievance procedure.

Accordingly, and as there is no evidence that the Activity 

engaged in any independent acts which constituted either interference 

with your rights under the Order or improper assistance to the AFGE 

within the meaning of Section 19(a)(3) of the Order, and no evidence 

to support your contention that the Regional Administrator decided the 

merits of the case without fully and fairly considering all relevant 

evidence, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

2 ' 1 4 - 7 3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr. Joel L. Frank 

32 Seneca Drive 

Commack, New York 11725

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

JFK International Airport 

Jamaica, New York 

Case No. 30-4984 E.O.

Dear Mr. Frank:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint 

in the above named case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1), (2) 

and (4) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find that 

further proceedings on your complaint are unwarranted. Thus, as found 

by the Regional Administrator, I find that as you elected to pursue 

your complaint under the Activity's grievance procedure, I am precluded 

from exercising jurisdiction in this matter pursuant; to Section 19(d) 

of the Executive Order. It should be noted also that the "directive" 

referred to in your request for review would not, standing alone, 

constitute an unfair labor practice. Rather, such matter was viewed 

as evidence related to your suspension which occurred more than nine 

months prior to the filing of the complaint in the instant case. See, 

in this latter regard, Section 203.2(b)(3) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations (copy enclosed).

Under these circumstances your request for review, seeking 

Teversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

297

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary■ of- Labor;
AUG 2 ? 1973

Louis P. Poulton, Esq.

Associate General Counsel 

International Association of 

Machinists 

1300 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Department of the Navy 

Naval Weapons Station 

Yorktown, Virginia 

Case No. 22-2881 (R0)

Dear Mr. Poulton:

This is in response to your telegram regarding the subject 

case. I find that the action of the Regional Administrator in 

selecting a recent eligibility date for the rerun election in this 

matter was not arbitrary and capricious nor inconsistent with my 

ruling of August 2, 1973.

The period for eligibility used in the original election (held 

September 13, 1972) was in the month of July 1972; the runoff election 

took place February 23, 1973, using the same July 1972, eligibility 

period. In my opinion, and in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

use of the original eligibility date for the rerun election would have 

the likely effect of disenfranchizing a considerable number of employees 

now in the unit due to turnover of employees in the unit since July 

1972* It Is clear that use of a current eligibility period such as 

that designated by the Regional Administrator (August 4, 1973) will 

provide a more representative vote for unit employees, in keeping with 

the purposes and policies of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Accordingly, your request that I overrule the Regional Administrator's choice of a recent eligibility period for purposes of the 

rerun election, is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h b A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O p p i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 30, 1973

Mr. Roger P. Kaplan 

General Counsel

National Association of 299

Government Employees 

1341 G Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

ARTCC, Euless, Texas 

Case No. 63-4423 (CA)

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking the setting 

aside of the Regional Administrator's approval of the settlement agreement 

in the above-named case.

I find that denial of your request for review is warranted. Thus, I 

find that the Settlement Agreement approved by the Regional Administrator 

was appropriate under the circumstances of this case and that the Regional 

Administrator had the authority pursuant to Section 203.7(a) of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations to approve such Agreement despite the refusal of 

the Complainant to be a signatory. In this regard, Section 203.7(a) of the 

Assistant Secretary's Regulations provides, in part, that "If the Regional 

Administrator determines that ... a satisfactory written ... offer of 

settlement by the respondent has been made ... he may request the complainant 

to withdraw the complaint and in the absence of such withdrawal within a 

reasonable time he may dismiss the complaint." Under the circumstances,

I view the Settlement Agreement executed by the Respondent on June 29, 1973, 

to constitute "a satisfactory written offer of settlement" by the Respondent 

within the meaning of the foregoing Regulation.

Although you have expressed dissatisfaction over the manner in which 

your case was handled by personnel of the Dallas Area Office and have 

implied that undue pressure was placed upon officials of the Complainant 

to sign the proposed Settlement Agreement, I am unable to find evidence of 

improper conduct on the part of the personnel assigned to your case or of 

any other irregularities with respect to the processing of your complaint 

which would warrant a contrary result in this matter.

300
- 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking the setting aside of the 

Regional Administrator's approval of the Settlement Agreement in this matter, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

S EP 4 1973

Mr. Joseph Girlando 

National Representative

American Federation of Qflfl

Government Employees, AFL-CIO o'-'U

300 Main Street 

Orange, New Jersey 07050

Re: VeteranscAdminis£ration Hospit 

East Orange, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3206 E.O.

Dear Mr. Girlando:

This is in connection with your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint 

in the above named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(l)(3) 

and (4) of Executive Order 11491.

In his dismissal letter dated July 31, 1973, the Regional 

Administrator advised that pursuant to Section 203.7(c) of the 

Regulations of the Assistant Secretary an appeal of his action 

could be had by filing a request for review which must be received 

by the Assistant Secretary not later than the close of business 

August 13, 1973,

Your request for review was postmarked August 13, 1973, in 

Orange, New Jersey and was not received in my office until August 10, 

1973. Therefore, it was filed untimely. You ask that the request, 

for review be considered timely inasmuch as you did not receive the 

Regional Administrator's decision until you returned to your office 

011 August 8, 1973, after your vacation. I am unable to grant this 

latter request under all the circumstances including the timeliness 

requirements of the Regulations, the notice given you in that regard 

by the Regional Administrator, and the fact that no extension of time 

was requested.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. .. o*" .

O p F ic ii o f T iii: A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 v

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f F I C B OF T H E A SSIS T A N T SE C R E T A R Y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr„ Stuart M. Foss

Labor Relations Advisor

Labor Disputes and Appeals Section

Department of the Navy

Naval Ordnance Laboratory

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

05:.*

&

SEP 6 1973

301

Re: Department of thepNavy

Naval Ordnance Laboratory 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

Case Nos. 22-3986 <AP) 

22-4000 (AP)

Dear Mr„ Foss:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Cricvability 

and Arbitrability in the above named cases.

In your request for review, you allege that the grievances 

involved in the above-cited cases are, in fact, job grading appeals.

In this connection, you state that such matters have been delegated 

by statute to the Civil Service Commission and that an administrative 

appellate procedure has been created as the exclusive method for 

handling them. You contend that because the grievances are job 

grading appeals and are subject to a statutory appeals procedure, 

they are precluded from consideration by an arbitrator under the 

terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the Naval 

Ordnance Laboratory and the Washington Area Metal Trades Council, 

AFL-CIO, (Council) and by the provisions of Section 13(a) of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I agree, with the conclusion 

of the Acting Regional Administrator that the unresolved issues herein 

involve the interpretation and application of the negotiated agreement 

and, thus, are arbitrable pursuant to the terms of that agreement.

Contrary to your contention that the grievances involved 

herein are in fact job.grading appeals, I find that the unresolved 

issues in these cases are those of work jurisdiction rather than oiies 

involving job classification and, as such, fall under Article XX 

(Jurisdictional Disputes) of the negotiated agreement and, thus, are 

subject to arbitration under the terms of Article XXIX of the agreement.

- 2 -

With regard to your allegations that the Acting Regional Administrator's decision is not consistent with Section 6(a)(5) of the Order 

in view of the fact that he has referred the arbitrability question to 

an arbitrator, I find that the content of the Acting Regional Administrator's Report and Findings in this matter requires a conclusion to 

the contrary. In this connection, the Acting Regional Administrator 

concluded, and I concur, that the unresolved questions in this case 

involve the interpretation and application of the negotiated agreement 

and are arbitrable under the terms of the agreement. Thus, he made an 

assessment of the nature of the dispute as contemplated by Section 

6(a)(5) of the Order. On the basis of the above, I find, in agreement 

with the Acting Regional Administrator, that th^issuespraised by the 

Council may be considered by an arbitrator pursuant to the parties' 

negotiated agreement.

Accordingly, and as there is no evidence to support your 

contention-that the Acting Regional Administrator decided the merits 

of the case without fully and fairly considering all relevant evidence, 

your request for review, seeking the setting aside of the Acting Regional 

Administrator's Report and Findings on Grievability and Arbitrability, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

302
O f f i c e o : : t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W a s h i n g t o n , d .c . 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

SEP 6 1973

Ms. Alice L. Smith

President, Local 40

National Federation of *109

Federal Employees 

1004 Parkland Place S.E.

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87008

Re: Bureau of Indian Affairs

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 

Institute 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Case No. 63-4406 (RO)

Dear Ms. Smith:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of your RO petition.in the subject 

case seeking a unit of all nonsupervisory employees at the Southwestern 

Indian Polytechnic Institute, including employees in the 1710 series 

classification who were covered by a negotiated agreement between the 

Activity and the National Council of Bureau of Indian Affairs Educators 

(NCBIAE) at the time the petition was filed.

I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that 

dismissal of the petition in this matter is warranted* Thus, the 

evidence established that the instant petition was not filed within 

the 60 to 90 days period prior to the expiration of the negotiated 

agreement between the Activity and the NCBIAE and that,, consequently, 

the petition is barred under Section 202.3(c) of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations. Moreover, even in the absence of an agreement bar, the subject petition would be viewed as untimely under 

Section 202.3(b) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations as it was 

filed within 12 months after the certification of the NCBIAE as 

exclusive representative of the employees involved.

Regarding your request for permission to amend the petition to 

exclude the employees covered by the procedural bars, it was noted that 

your labor organization had previously refused to so amend the petition 

when given the opportunity by the Regional Administrator and that 

dismissal of the petition herein would not preclude your labor organization from filing a new petition to represent eligible employees of 

the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute who are not covered by 

procedural bars.

Under the foregoing circumstances, your request for review, 

eeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the 

nstant petition, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J* Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
9-6-73

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Ms. Alice L. Smith 

President, Local 40

National Federation of 303

Federal Employees 

1004 Parkland Place S.E.

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87008

Re: Bureau of Indian Affairs

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 

Institute 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Case No. 63-4407 (DR)

Dear Ms. Smith

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the petition in the. subject 

case filed by Ms. Vera Cushman, an individual, seeking to decertify 

the National Council of Bureau of Indian Affairs Educators (NCBIAE) 

insofar as it represents certain employees at the Southwestern 

Indian Polytechnic Institute.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with 

the Regional Administrator, that dismissal of the petition in this 

matter is warranted. Thus, the evidence established that the instant petition was not filed within the 60 to 90 days period prior 

to the expiration of the negotiated agreement between the Activity 

and the NCBIAE covering the employees in issue and that, consequently, 

the petition is barred under Section 202.3(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations. Moreover, even in the absence of an agreement 

bar, the subject petition would be viewed as untimely under Section 

202.3(b) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations as it was filed 

within 12 months after the certification of the NCBIAE as exclusive 

representative of the employees involved.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the instant petition, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

SEP 6 1973

Ms. Alice L. Smith 

President, Local 40

National Federation of '1D4

Federal Employees 

1004 Parkland Place S.E.

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87008

Re: Bureau of Indian Affairs

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 

Institute 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Case No. 63-4408 (CU)

Dear Ms. Smith:

I have considered carefully your request-for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the petition for clarification, 

of unit (CU) in the subject case seeking to clarify a unit of the 

Activity's employees who currently are represented on an exclusive 

basis by the National Council of Bureau of Indian Affairs Educators.

As the Petitioner herein, the National Federation of Federal 

Employees, Local Union-40, Independent (NFFE), is not currently 

recognized as the exclusive representative of the unit sought to be 

clarified, I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, that, 

pursuant to Section 202.1(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations, 

the NFFE is precluded from seeking clarification of the unit in this 

matter.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the subject petition, is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR y "

O f f i c e o f t h s A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20210 \ \

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

304
O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 12, 1973

Mr. Walter E. Shoemaker 

1501 Glenwood Street, N. W.

Birmingham, Alabama 35215

Re: American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO (Social Security 

Administration, Birmingham Payment 

Center)

Case No. 40-4727 (CO)

Dear Mr. Shoemaker:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) violated 

Section 19(b)(1) and (3) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I rind that further proceedings in 

this matter are unwarranted. The evidence reveals that the alleged violations herein resulted from a dispute between certain members of AFGE Local 

2206 and the AFGE concerning the composition of the Local's investigating 

committee (set up to investigate intra-union charges). In this regard, 

after the Local elected the members to serve on the committee, the AFGE 

took the position that certain of those elected were ineligible under its 

constitution to serve on the committee allegedly because they were involved 

directly or indirectly in the matters they were charged with investigating. 

Accordingly, the Local was directed to elect a new committee which did not 

include members with a direct or indirect interest in the matters they were 

obligated to investigate. It is your contention that the AFGE, in 

attempting to force the membership of Local 2206 to replace certain members 

of the investigating committee, including yourself, violated rights assured 

under the Order.

It is concluded that the alleged improper conduct did not establish 

a reasonable basis for the complaint under Section 19(b)(1) and (3) of the 

Order. Rather, it appears that the allegations relate to the rights of 

individual members of Local 2206 under the Standards of Conduct prescribed 

for labor organizations in Section 18 or the Order, as implemented by 

Section 204 of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

_2~

Accordingly, and as there is no evidence to support your contention 

that the Regional Administrator reached his decision without fully and 

fairly considering all relevant evidence, and no evidence that the Area 

Administrator abused his discretion under Section 203.5(a) of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations in extending the time for AFGE to respond to the 

complaint, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

305
O f p i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF-"LABOR

September 12, 1973

Mr; Carl B. Chamblee 

2230 North Third Avenue 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Re: American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

(Social Security Administration 

Birmingham Payment Center) 

Birmingham, Alabama 

Case No. 40-4717 (CO)

Dear Mr. Chamblee:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging that 

the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) violated 

Section 19(b)(1) and (3) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings in 

this matter are unwarranted. Thus, the record reveals that the alleged 

improper conduct herein occurred at a meeting conducted by the AFGE between 

representatives of two factions of Local 2206 for the purpose of resolving 

conflicts existing between them. The alleged improper conduct consisted 

of the failure of the AFGE (1) to equalize the number of persons representing the factions; (2) to oust alleged unauthorized persons; and (3) to 

surrender a tape recording of the meeting until one of its officials was 

threatened with arrest. You also allege that the AFGE had conspired with 

certain members of the Local 2206 AFGE to place the Local under trusteeship, 

but offered no evidence to support such allegation.

It is concluded that the alleged improper conduct did not establish 

a reasonable basis for the complaint under Section 19(b)(1) and (3) of the 

Order. Rather, it appeared that the allegations involved the rights of 

individual members of Local 2206 and the Standards of Conduct prescribed 

for labor organizations under Section 18 of the Order, as implemented by 

Section 204 of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Accordingly, and as there is no evidence that the Area Administrator 

abused his discretion under Section 203.5(a) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Itegulations in extending the time for the AFGE to respond to the complaint, 

and no evidence to support your contention that the Regional Administrator

- 2 -

reached his decision without fully and fairly considering all relevant 

evidence, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

306
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U:S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 12, 1973

Mr. Donald G. Jolly 

Post Office Box 5816 

Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Re: Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare 

Social Security Administration 

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors 

Insurance Payment Center 

Birmingham, Alabama 

Case No. 40-4747 (CA)

Dear Mr. Jolly:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging 

that the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance Payment Center at 

Birmingham, Alabama (Activity) violated Section 19(a)(1), (2), and (4) of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Upon review of all the evidence, I find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. With respect to your allegation that the 

Activity restricted your personal phone calls and visitors during working 

hours, the evidence failed to establish that these restrictions were motivated in whole or in part by discriminatory considerations. Rather, it 

appears that the Activity’s conduct in this regard was based on the legitimate needs of its operations. As to your allegation that the Activity 

denied you an overtime assignment on Saturday, October 21, 1972, because 

of your union activities, the evidence established that you were refused 

overtime because the volume of work available which you were qualified to 

perform did not warrant overtime and not because of anti-union considerations. 

Regarding your contention that you were impeded in processing your grievance 

by your group leader yelling at your personal representative and by the 

Activity's failure to grant your personal representative administrative 

leave for the purpose of assisting you in processing your grievance, the 

evidence failed to support either of these allegations. Noted particularly 

in this latter regard was the fact that the Activity promptly granted your 

personal representative administrative leave when it realized that he was 

entitled to it. Finally, it is found that no evidence was presented to 

establish a basis for the Section 19(a)(4) allegation of your complaint.

- 2 -

Accordingly, and noting the absence of any evidence to support your 

contention that the Acting Regional Administrator decided the merits of the 

case without fully and fairly considering all relevant evidence, your request 

for review, seeking reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 12, 1973

O Q O

Ms. Ella S. Porter

1616 - 30th Street, West

Birmingham, Alabama 35208

Re: American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

(Social Security Administration, 

Birmingham Payment Center)

Case No. 40-4917 (CO)

Dear Ms. Porter:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint alleging 

that the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) 

violated Section 19(b)(1) and (4) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings in 

this matter are unwarranted. The record reveals that the alleged improper 

conduct consists of matters which involve the internal affairs of the AFGE 

and its Local 2206 which' is currently under trusteeship. Thus, it is your 

contention that the AFGE violated the Order by selecting a member of Local 

2206 to serve as Treasurer during the trusteeship of Local 2206 who had 

charges pending against him filed by certain members of the Local for 

allegedly mishandling of the Local’s funds when he served previously as 

Treasurer; by failing to give timely and comprehensible financial and 

membership reports; and by expending the Locals funds without prior :authorization from its membership.

It is concluded that the alleged improper conduct does not establish 

a reasonable basis for the complaint under Section 19(b)(1) and (4) of the 

Order. Rather, it appears that the allegations involved the rights of the 

Individual members of Local 2206 under the Standards of Conduct prescribed 

for labor organizations embodied in Section 18 of the Order as implemented 

in Section 204 of the Assistant Secretary*s Regulations.

Accordingly, and noting the absence of any evidence to support your 

contention that the Acting Regional Administrator did not give adequate 

consideration to the evidence and issues presented in the case and the 

absence of any evidence to support the 19(b)(4) allegation, the request 

for review, seeking reversal of the dismissal of the complaint by the 

Acting Regional Administrator, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

308
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 12, 1973

.109 Ms. Mary T. Waldrop 

P. 0. Box 5761 

Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Re: American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

(Social Security Administration, 

Birmingham Payment Center)

Case No. 40-4742 (CO)

Dear Ms. Waldrop:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint 

alleging that the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

(AFGE) violated Section 19(b)(1) and (3) of Executive Order 11491, as 

amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. The record reveals that the alleged 

violations herein occurred in connection with the AFGE's attempts to 

mediate and resolve the conflicts and dissension existing among the 

officers and members of AFGE Local 2206, and its subsequent action in 

placing the Local in trusteeship. In this regard, it is your contention 

that the AFGE violated Section 19(b)(1) and (3) of the Order by failing 

to observe fair and democratic procedures in placing and continuing the 

Local in trusteeship.

It is concluded that the alleged improper conduct did not 

establish a reasonable basis for the complaint under Section 19(b)(1) and

(3) of the Order. Rather, it appears that the allegations herein involve 

rights of individual members of Local 2206 which stem from the participation in the internal affairs of the AFGE and Local 2206. Such allegations are not appropriately raised under Section 19 of the Order 

but appear to be applicable to the Standards of Conduct prescribed 

for labor organizations in Section 18 of the Order, as implemented by 

Part 204 of the Assistant Secretary’s Regulations.

Accordingly, and as there is no evidence that the Area Administrator abused his discretion under Section 203.5(a) of the Assistant 

Secretary’s Regulations in extending the time for the AFGE to respond 

to the complaint, and no evidence to support your contention that the 

Regional Administrator reached his decision without fully and fairly 

considering all relevant evidence, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
fM /7 3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h b A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President, Local 476

National Federation of nj /\

Federal Employees OX\J

P. O. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey-07739

Be: U. S. Array Electronics Command 

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3289 E.O.

Dear Mr. Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of ^the complaint 

in the above named case, alleging violations of Section 19(a) of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find that 

further proceedings on your complaint are unwarranted. For the 

reasons cited by the Regional Administrator, I find that a reasonable 

basis for the complaint was not established in that none of the 

employees involved in the reorganization of July 1, 1973, were 

represented by the NF^E, Under these circumstances, the Activity 

was not under any obligation to consult with your organization 

concerning any alleged changes brought about by the reorganization. 

Moreover, there was no evidence to support your allegation that the 

reorganization would soon affect employees represented by the NFFE.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

yj3nrs'

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

<lja s/73

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic b o f t h b A s s is t a n t Se c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr. Gabriel P. Cardiello ^

123 Gordon Street

Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660

Ret Military Ocean Terminal 

Bayonne, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3101

Dear Mr. Cardiello:

I have considered carefully your request for review in which 

you seek reversal of the Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal 

of your complaint in the above-named case, alleging violation of 

Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Acting Regional Administrator, I find 

that further proceedings on your complaint are unwarranted. Thus, 

for the reasons cited by the Acting Regional Administrator, I find 

that you have not established a reasonable basis for your complaint 

that the Activity interfered with your rights assured by the 

Executive Order and discriminated against you because of your union 

activities.

Accordinglyj your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Acting Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

310
9-28-73

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

312

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Boston Air Route Traffic Control 

Center

Case No. 31-6076 E.O.

Dear Mr. Ramsey:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the Regional Administrator's refusal to hold a hearing or otherwise to permit litigation on the issues raised by the Federal Aviation Science and 

Technological Association (FASTA), a division of the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) in the above case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Regional Administrator refused to apply the provisions of Executive Order 11491, 

as amended, to the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization 

(PATCO) by declining to hold a hearing or otherwise to permit litigation concerning certain alleged disabilities of the PATCO to serve 

as the collective bargaining representative of some 20 teletype operators included in the unit petitioned for by the PATCO. In this regard, you maintain that the PATCO, under its current Constitution, 

denies all membership rights to any employee of the Federal Government unless such employee is a qualified Air Traffic Controller or 

one who is studying or in training for that vocation. In such circumstances, you allege that under the provisions of the Order, the 

PATCO cannot represent the teletype operators as it would allegedly 

be impossible for such employees to enjoy full membership rights in 

the PATCO.

Under all the circumstances disclosed herein, I agree with the 

action of the Regional Administrator. In essence, you are asserting 

that Section 19(c) of the Order has been violated by the PATCO and 

hence, its petition should be dismissed. Section 19(c) of Executive 

Order 11491, as amended, provides:

Gordon P. Ramsey, Esq. 

Colson & Shapiro, Esqs.

One Boston Place

Boston, Massachusetts 02108

- 2 -

"A labor organization which is accorded exclusive 

recognition shall not deny membership to any employee 

in the appropriate unit except for failure to meet 

reasonable occupational standards uniformly required 

for admission, or for failure to tender initiation 

fees and dues uniformly required as a condition of 

acquiring and retaining membership. This paragraph 

does not preclude a labor organization from enforcing 

discipline in accordance with procedures under its 

constitution or by-laws which conform to the requirements of this Order.

I note that the provisions of Section 19(c) provide standards which 

limit the right of labor organizations to deny membership to employees 

after the grant of exclusive recognition. Thus, your contentions with 

respect to the PATCO*s disability to represent teletype operators are 

speculative and are premature at best as no election has yet been held 

and the PATCO has not been certified as the exclusive bargaining agent. 

Moreover, the evidence you present fails to show that, if certified, 

the PATCO will deny membership to the teletype operators. In these 

circumstances, I find, in agreement with the Regional Administrator, 

that the issues you raise are not litigable within the context of the 

instant representation proceeding.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's refusal to hold a hearing or otherwise to 

permit litigation on the above issues, is denied.

In its pursuit of a final resolution of the issues involved 

herein, FASTA-NAGE chose not to sign the consent election agreement 

in the subject representation proceeding. Under the circumstances, I 

am of the view that FASTA-NAGE should be afforded another opportunity 

to participate in the election to be conducted at the Federal Aviation 

Administration*s Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center (Activity).

In this connection, I shall remand the subject case to the Regional 

Administrator for further action as set forth below:

1. The Regional Administrator should ascertain whether the 

FASTA-NAGE is now willing to sign the Consent Election Agreement as 

executed by the other parties on July 27, 1973, covering the unit 

sought by the PATCO.

2. If the FASTA-NAGE indicates a willingness to sign the 

Consent Election Agreement, the FASTA-NAGE shall be given an opportunity to do so, and to participate in the election to be conducted 

pursuant to that agreement.

311
J - 3 -

3. If the FASTA-NAGE is not willing to sign the Consent Election Agreement, the Regional Administrator is instructed to dismiss 

the intervention by the FASTA-NAGE in the subject representation proceeding and to proceed to an election in the unit sought by the PATCO, 

with FASTA-NAGE excluded from the ballot.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f ic e o p t h r A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Robert J. Gorman 

President, Illinois Federation

National Federation of Federal Q4--Q

Employees O X y

S East Delaware Place, Apt. 3R 

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Re: Federal Aviation £dministration 

Great Lakes Region, Airports 

Division 

Des Plaines, Illinois 

Case No. 50-5522

Dear Mr. Gorman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal, of objections to 

the election filed by Local 1300, National Federation of Federal 

Employees (NFFE) in the above named case.

I agree.with the reasons given by the Regional Administrator, 

in his Report and Findings on Objections, for his dismissal of 

Objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 and find, moreover, that the signing of the 

Agreement for Consent or Directed Election by the parties, including 

the NFFE, was dispositive of the above numbered objections.

The sole area of disagreement indicated on the election agreement was the change in the hours of election from a two hour period 

to one of thirty minutes. This was the basis for Objection No. 1 in 

wnich you protested the Area Administrator's specifying a thirty 

minute period for. the election.

I find that the Area Administrator acted within his authority 

under Section 202.7(d) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations when 

he changed the hours of election subsequent to the parties signing of 

the consent agreement on April 3, 1973. In this connection, particularly 

noted was the Regional Administrator's conclusion that a thirty minute 

period was sufficient for an election involving only ten eligible 

voters and the fact that the NFFE was not prejudiced by the change in 

hours because, in fact, all eligible voters were present and did vote*

312
- 2 -

Accordingly, the request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Objections, is denied, 

and the Regional Administrator is directed to cause a Certification 

of Results of Election to be issued.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

'•> U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

William R. Tait, Jr., Esq. aj »

McNerney, Page, Vanderlln & Hall <3-1-^*

433 Market Street 

Williamsport, Pennaylvania 17701

Re: Department of Justice 

U. S. Bureau of Prisons 

U. S. Penitentiary 

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 

Case No. 20-4035 (AP)

Dear Mr. Tait:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter, dated September 14, 

1973, addressed to Mr. Louis S. Wallerstein, Director, Office of Federal 

Labor-Management Relations, in which you move for reconsideration of 

his denial of your request for a ten day extension of time in which to 

file a request for review in the above named case. This request for an 

extension of time was dated and received on September 4, 1973, which 

was the date on which the request for review was due.

As Mr. Wallerstein stated in his letter to you of September 6, 

1973, Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary 

provides, in pertinent part, that requests for extension of time must 

be received not later than three days prior to the date the request 

for review is due. Considerations of uniform and expeditious handling 

of cases compel my adherence to the timeliness requirements of the 

Regulations in this respect. Therefore, I must deny your motion for 

reconsideration.

Your request for review, seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator's decision, was received on September 14, 1973, although 

you were advised by the Regional Administrator that it must be received 

by the Assistant Secretary not later than the close of business on 

September 4, 1973. It was, therefore, filed untimely and will not be 

considered.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f ic e o r t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

313
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR '

September 28, 1973

Michael A. Forscey, Esq.

National Federation of Federal o-j r

Employees <JJ-D

1737 H Street, N.W.

Wasington, D.C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Fort Meade, South Dakota 

Case Nos. 60-2847 (RO)

60-3309 (R0)

Dear Mr. Forscey:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal, in part, of the Report and Findings on Objections issued 

by the Regional Administrator in connection with the runoff and the 

consent elections conducted in the above captioned cases.

In your request for review you seek reversal of the Regional 

Administrator’s findings and recommendations concerning two of five 

objections filed with the Area Administrator on the ground that the 

Regional Administrator erred by refusing to consider evidence offered 

to substantiate the two, objections on which review was requested.

This evidence was received in the Area Office on April 30, 1973.

You had been advised by letter dated April 17, 1973, from the Area 

Administrator that the supporting evidence must be received no later 

than April 27. Your contention is that by a proper application of 

Section 206.2 of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, the 

NFFE had a period of time, up to and including April 30, to submit 

its supporting evidence. You have misread the import of Section 

206.2 and have failed to take into account the application of Section 

202.20 (b) of the Regulations to the instant cases.

Section 206.2 provides that

"Whenever a party has the right or is required to do 

some act pursuant to these regulations within a 

proscribed period after service of a notice or other 

paper upon him and the notice or paper is served on 

him by mail, three (3) days shall be added to the 

prescribed period, provided, however, three (3) days 

shall not be added if any extension of time may have 

been granted."

-2-

In my view, the communication from the Area Administrator.acknowledging 

receipt of objections and setting a deadline date before which evidence 

in support of the objections must be submitted was not subject to the 

requirement of Section 206.2. Rather, such communication was viewed 

merely as an acknowledgement of receipt of the objections and a reminder 

to the objecting party that evidence must be submitted as of a date 

certain. Thus, Section 206.2 did not afford an additional "grace" 

period of three days for the furnishing of the evidence in the subject 

cases.

Based on the foregoing circumstances, I conclude, in agreement 

with the Regional Administrator, that the National Federation of 

Federal Employees, Local 814, failed timely to meet its burden of 

proof prescribed by Section 202.20(b) of the Regulations.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator’s Report and Findings on Objections, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

314
OCT 9 1973

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President, Local 476

National Federation of 316

Federal Employees 

P. 0. Box 294

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3285 E.O.

Dear Mr. Cahn:

This will acknowledge your telegraphic request for review dated 

and received on September 20, 1973, seeking reversal of the Regional 

Administrator’s dismissal of your- complaint in the above named case, 

alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) 

of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Your request for review, filed pursuant to Section 203.7(c) 

of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations, cannot be considered as 

it is procedurally defective in that it does not comply with the 

following requirements set forth in Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations which are applicable in this situation:

1. No statement of service was filed with the request for review.

2. The request for review did not contain a complete statement 

setting forth facts and reasons upon which the request is 

based.

I note that your telegram requests an "extension of time to 

file a complete statement." In effect, you are requesting an extension of time to file an appropriate, request for review. Viewed as 

such, this request is untimely under the aforementioned Section of 

the Regulations which requires that "Requests for an extension of 

time shall be . . . received by the Assistant Secretary not later 

than three (3) days before the date the request for review is due."

Your extension request was received on the day the request for review was received, which was the last day the request for review 

could be received timely, as you were advised by the Regional Administrator. Therefore, the extension request cannot be granted.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

to - ?- 73

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Ms. Pearl M. Scaggs 

2305 Devonshire Drive 

Lawrencevilie, Illinois 62439

Re: Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare 

Social Security Administration 

Chicago, Illinois0 

Case No. 50-9708 (CA)

Dear Ms. Scaggs:

This will acknowledge your request.for review postmarked 

September 24, 1973, and received on September 27, 1973, seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint 

in the above-named case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1) of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Your request for review, filed pursuant to Section 203.7(c) 

of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations, cannot be considered as 

it is procedurally defective in that it does not comply with the 

•following requirements set forth in Section 202.6(d) of the 

Regulations which are applicable in this situation:

1. No statement of service was filed with the request for

review.

2. The request for review did not contain a complete statement setting forth facts and reasons upon which the request is based.

3. The request for review was received untimely by the 

Assistant Secretary.

In his decision dated September 10, 1973, the Regional Administrator notified you that you had the right to file a request for 

review and that it must be received by the Assistant Secretary no 

later than the close of business on September 24, 1973. As stated 

above, the request for review was, in fact, received by the Assistant 

Secretary on September 27, 1973,

315
Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, your request for 

review cannot be considered*

Sincerely,

Paul J* Fasser, Jr« 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

/ / w V y j

Mr. Andrew Jorgenson 

President, Local 179 

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

4519 South Canyon Road 

Rapid City, South Dakota 57701

Robert M. Ross, Esq.

Staff Attorney 

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of the Air Force 

Ellsworth Air Force Base 

South Dakota 

Case No. 60-3412 (RO)

Gentlemen:

I have considered carefully your respective requests for review 

of the Assistant Regional Director's decision in the above-named case.

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the Assistant 

Regional Director that Local -179, NFFE's failure to serve simultaneously 

on all interested parties its request to intervene warrants denial of 

the intervention request. In this regard, your requests for.review 

fail to show good 'cause for the NFFE's failure to comply with Section 

202.5(c) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary or to raise 

any material issue which would warrant reversal of the Assistant 

Regional Director's action. It is significant to note that the simultaneous service requirement for intervention is clearly set forth in 

the Notice to Employees (LMSA 1102) which was posted by the Activity 

herein on June 13, 1973.

Accordingly, your requests for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's denial of the NFFE's request to intervene, 

are denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Paul Jo Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

316
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

NOV 1 6 1973

Mr. Ciro A. Poggioreale 

President, Local 2204 

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO Q

Building 129 

Fort Hamilton 

Brooklyn, New York 11252

Res Department of the Army

Headquarters, Fort Hamilton, 

New York

Case No. 30-5132(CA)

Dear Mr. Poggioreale:

This is in connection with your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director*s dismissal of your 

complaint in the subject case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) 

and (6) of Executive Order 11491.

I find that the request for review is procedurally defective 

in the following respects:

1. It was filed untimely with the Assistant Secretary.

The Assistant Regional Director issued his decision in 

this matter on September 18, 1973, and, as you were 

advised therein, a request for review of that decision 

must have been received by the Assistant Secretary no 

later than October 1, 1973. It was, in fact, received 

on November 8, 1973.

2. Contrary to the requirements of Section 202.6(d) 

of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, no 

statement of service of the request for review on 

the Assistant Regional Director and the other parties 

was filed with the request for review.

Under these circumstances, the merits of the case have not 

been considered and your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's decision dismissing the complaint, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y - *

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 & ’-***- 5

\ ^ / ^V,s0''

NOV 19 1973

Mr. David F. Osgood 

President, Local 12

American Federation of 3 2 0

Technical Engineers 

P. 0. Box 287

Bremerton, Washington 98310

Re: Puget Sound Nav«H Shipyard 

Bremerton, Washington 

Case No. 71-2507

Dear Mr. Osgood:

This is in connection with your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on a Petition for 

Clarification of Unit filed by the Bremerton Metal Trades Council,

AFL-CIO, in the above named case.

Under the circumstances, I find that your organization is not 

a party in the subject case with standing to file a request for review.

Thus, the evidence establishes that at no time did your organization 

notify the Area Administrator of its desire to intervene in this 

matter in accordance with Section 202.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations. In this regard, your letter of January 24, 1973, 

addressed to the Area Administrator, did not request intervention 

and did not meet the additional requirements for intervention as set 

forth in Section 202.5(c) including simultaneous service on all known 

interested parties.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

317
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

NOV 28 1973

Mr. N. T. Wolkomir 

President

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N.W.t 

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Department of the Air Force 

Ellsworth Air Force Base 

South Dakota 

Case No. 60-3412 (RC)

Dear Mr. Wolkomir:

I have considered carefully your telegraphic request that I reconsider my ruling of November 14, 1973, denying the requests for review of the Assistant Regional Director's decision in the above named 

case.

Your telegram, which apparently was not served on the other interested parties in this matter, raises no points not previously considered. Thus, it has been consistently held that, absent unusual circumstances, the simultaneous seryice requirements of the Regulations of 

the Assistant Secretary must be observed by the parties. See, in this 

regard, Report Nos. 41 and 45 (copies attached). In this matter, the 

same principle was considered to apply to requests for intervention in 

a representation proceeding. As pointed out in my ruling of November 

14, 1973, good cause was not shown in this case for the failure to comply with Section 202.5(c) of the Regulations which would warrant reversal 

of the Assistant Regional Director's action.

Accordingly, your request for reconsideration of my ruling of 

November 14, 1973, is denied.

With respect to your request for a meeting concerning the subject case, under the circumstances I consider it inappropriate to meet

321

separately with one of the parties in a pending case. However, I 

would be happy to meet with you at any convenient time to discuss 

generally any matters you may wish to raise concerning the overall 

administration of Executive Order 11491.

Sincerely yours,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

318
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

i - o , ? 73

Mr. Raymond Hall 

President, Federal Employees

Metal Trades Council 322

P. 0. Box 2052 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, N. H. 03801

Be: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, N. H.

Case No. 31-6198 E. 0.

Dear Mr. Hall:

I have considered carefully your request for review in which 

you seek reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

your complaint in the above-named case, alleging violation of 

Section 19(a)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as 

amended.

In agreement with tho Assistant Regional Director I find that 

further proceedings on your complaint are unwarranted. Thus, I 

find that a reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established 

in that the evidence does not reveal that the Activity herein has 

acted in derogation of any rights assured by the Executive Order.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

/ / - J 0 - / 3

Mr. Leopold J. Gunston 

P. 0. Box 29

Alameda, California 94501

Re; American Federation of Government 

Employees, Local 1122, AFL-CIO 

, (Social Security Administration

San FrC.«cisco Payment Center) 

Case, No. 70-4021

Dear Mr. Gunston:

I have considered carefully your request for review, in which 

you seek reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

your complaint in the above named case alleging violation of Section 

19(b)(1) and (5) of Executive Order 11491, by Local 1122, American 

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that further proceedings on your complaint are unwarranted* Thus, 

for the reasons given by the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that your complaint was not filed timely in accordance with Section 

203.2(b)(2) of the Rules and Regulations of the Assistant Secretary. 

Moreover, no evidence was presented which would supply a reasonable 

basis for the complaint, even assuming that it had been filed timely*

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint, is. 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

319
Orpici; or t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r t . t a r v 

WASHINGTON', D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ms. Janet Cooper

Staff Attorney

National Federation of 324

rederal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: U. S. Air Force

Andrews Air Ford^ Base 

Base Fire Department 

Case No. 22-3954(CA)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint in the above named case, alleging violations of Section 

19(a)(1), (5) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, X find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. In this regard, I have noted your 

contention that the complaint is not subject to Section 19(d) of the 

Order because it was filed after a second implementation of the 

alleged change in working conditions, rather than after the first 

implementation, which had been the subject of ?. grievance® However, 

this contention must be rejected because it was raised for the first 

time in your request for review and it is not supported by the 

evidence presented to the Assistant Regional Director. Therefore, I 

find, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, that your 

complaint cannot be processed based on Section 19(d) of the Order as 

it is clear that the issues herein were raised previously under a 

grievance procedure. Under these circumstances, I find it unnecessary 

to consider your contentions regarding the Assistant Regional Director’s 

findings on the substantive aspects of your complaint.

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, your request 

for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's 

dismissal of your complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

December 3, 1973

Eric B. Meyers, Esq.

Shutts & Bowen O O K

Tenth Floor

First National Bank Building 

Miami, Florida 33131

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Miami, Florida 

Case No. 42-2295 (RO)

Dear Mr. Meyers:

I have considered carefully your request for review in which 

you seek reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s Report and 

Findings on Objections in the above named case.

The Assistant Regional Director found merit in one of the 

objections filed by the National Federation of Federal Employees,

Local 1453, set aside the election held in this matter on August 21,

1973, and ordered a rerun election.

The objection which was sustained complained that the observer 

representing the Florida Nurses Association (FNA) in said election 

was not eligible to serve as an observer. The Assistant Regional 

Director found that this objection was meritorious, warranting the 

setting aside of the election on the basis that the observer in 

question was not an employee of the Federal Government.

I agree. The observer who represented the FNA was not a Federal 

employee as specified in paragraph 4 of the Agreement for Consent or 

Directed Election signed by the parties on August 1, 1973, and as 

further specified in the Procedural Guide for Conduct of Elections 

issued by the Assistant Secretary on February 9, 1970. Moreover, 

the observer specifically was advised by the Compliance Office and 

authorized to serve as an observer because she was a non-Federal 

employee. Nevertheless, she declined to leave the area of the polls 

on the day of the election and insisted on acting as an observer, 

obstensibly upon advice of counsel.

In your request for review, you contend that the provisions in 

the Consent Election Agreement and in the procedural Guide restricting 

the selection of observers to non-supervisory employees of the Federal 

government, conflict with paragraph 202.17(f) of the Regulations of

320
-2-

the Assistant Secretary which reads as follows:

" (f) Any party may be represented at the polling place(s) 

by observers of his own selection, subject to such limitations 

as the Area Administrator may prescribe." (Emphasis added)

Your argument in this regard is that no limitations or guidelines 

concerning the qualifications of observers were prescribed by the Area 

Administrator as contemplated by paragraph 202.17(f) and, therefore, 

the FNA was free to designate a non-Federal employee as its observer. 

Further, you contend that paragraph 202.7(f) was adopted "nearly-- two

years and seven months after the promulgation of the Procedural Guide --

by the former Assistant Secretary of Labor and not the Area Administrator" 

and that "it is questionable whether the Procedural Guide, which became

effective before the amendment -- has any application to the conduct

of elections held under Executive Order 11616."

These contentions are rejected* You are in error in your ' 

statement that paragraph 202.17(f) was adopted more than two years after 

the issuance of the Procedural Guide. The same paragraph, designated 

paragraph 202.17(e), was contained in the initial regulations promulgated 

under Executive Order 11491 on February 4, 1970. With respect to 

your argument that the Area Administrator issued no guidelines or 

limitations disqualifying non-Federal employees as observers, the 

official consent agreement form signed by all parties, and approved 

by the Area Administrator, contained the provision, referred to above, 

limiting observers to "nonsupervisory employees of the Federal government." Such an approval of a consent election agreement by an Area 

Administrator means, in effect, that the Assistant Secretary will 

supervise an election pursuant to all of the terms and conditions set 

forth in the agreement. This official consent agreement form was 

approved by the Assistant Secretary for use by his agents in the Area 

Offices of the Labor-Management Services Administration and, together 

with the Procedural Guide, established the Assistant Secretary's 

policy in this respect which was, in no sense, in conflict with the 

Regulations implementing E. 0. 11491. Finally, it is pointed out that 

E.O. 11616 merely amended, and did not supplant, E.O. 11491 and in no 

way revised the aforementioned policy of the Assistant Secretary 

regarding the disqualification of non-Federal employee observers.

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, your request for

review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report

and Findings upholding one objection to the election and directing a

rerun election, is denied, and the Assistant Regional Director is

directed to cause a rerun election to be conducted.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D,C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ms, Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney

National Federation of 326

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration Data 

Processing Cer?Uer 

Austin, Texas 

Case No. 63-4708(DR)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's denial of your request 

for intervention in the above named case*

Under the particular circumstances of this case, X find that 

the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1745, (NFFE) should 

be permitted to intervene in the subject proceedings. Thus, considering 

the special characteristics of a decertification case, where absent an 

express disclaimer of interest, the incumbent labor organization (NFFE 

in this instance) must appear on the ballot (see Section 202.17(e) of 

the Assistant Secretary's Regulations), as well as the mitigating 

circumstances surrounding the NFFE's efforts to intervene timely in 

this matter, it was concluded that the NFFE should be considered as a 

party to the election in the subject case. In this regard, it was noted 

that the rights accorded to the NFFE herein would include the privileges 

normally accorded a timely intervenor with the qualification that the 

NFFE must sign the consent election agreement preceding the election.

In my view, under the circumstances herein, a refusal by the NFFE to 

sign the consent election agreement would be tantamount to a disclaimer 

of interest*

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's decision is granted, and the Assistant 

Regional Director is directed to grant the request to intervene under 

the circumstances outlined above, and to cause an election to be
- 2 -

conducted when and if all blocking unfair labor practice complaints, 

which I understand the NFFE has filed against the Activity, relating 

to the unit involved herein have been disposed of finally, or proper 

requests to proceed have been filed*

Sincerely,

Paul J* Fasser, Jr® 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

December 3, 1973

Ms. Janet Cooper 

Attorney

Local 738

National Federation of Federal 

Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: National Association of Government 

Employees, Local R14-32 

(Fort Leonard Wood)

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Case No. 62-3712 (CO)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the above 

named case alleging violations of Section 19(b)(1) of Executive Order 11491, 

as amended.

In agreement with the Regional Administrator, I find that further 

proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. Thus, as found by the Regional 

Administrator, I find that the National Association of Government Employees 

Local R14-32, did not violate 19(b)(1) of the Order by allegedly soliciting 

employee signatures during the duty hours of the employees involved to 

support a petition for exclusive recognition as there is no evidence that 

such conduct interfered with, restrained, or coerced such employees in the 

exercise of their rights under Section 1(a) of the Order. In this connection, 

it was noted that while the Order does not give either a labor organization 

or its employee supporters the right to engage in union activities during 

duty hours, the Order does not necessarily prescribe such activities, absent 

evidence of discrimination on the basis of union membership considerations.

Under those circumstances, your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of your complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

322
O f f ic e o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

/ T ' / s y 73

Mr. William F. Kuntz 

Director of Management 

New York Payment Center 

Social Security Administration 

96-05 Horace Harding Expressway 

Flushing, New York 11368

Re: Bureau of Retirement and Survivors 

Insurance 

Social Security Administration,

HEW

New York Payment Center 

Case No. 30-5138(GP)

Dear Mr* Kuntz;

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Grievability and 

Arbitrability in the above named case*

In your request for review, which was expressly limited to the 

findings of the Regional Administrator with respect to the application 

and interpretation of Article 8, Section (a) of the negotiated agreement, you state that the basis of management's grievance of February 22, 

1973, was the distribution by AFGE Local 1760 of union literature on 

government property. You contend that the Local's unauthorized desk to 

desk distribution of its February 1973 issue of the newsletter, "Spirit 

of 1760" constituted a violation of Article 8, Section (a) of the 

parties' Master Agreement.

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the conclusion of 

the Regional Administrator that Article 8, Section (a) of the negotiated 

agreement is unambiguous in that it clearly relates exclusively to 

materials posted by the Local on bulletin boards. Thus, I find that 

the dispute herein, over the Local's desk to desk distribution of the 

union newsletter, did not concern a matter subject to the negotiated 

grievance procedure because the restrictions described in Article 8, 

Section (a) do not apply to any method of distributing union literature 

other than that involving the use of bulletin boards.

Accordingly, and noting that there is no evidence to support 

your contention that the Regional Administrator acted arbitrarily or 

failed in any way to give adequate consideration to all the evidence 

relevant to the case, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Grievability and 

Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
/2. - 1 o - 7 3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20210

Mr. David Jay Markman 

Assistant General Counsel

National Association of Government 'JOQ

Employees 

1341 G Street, N . V.f.

Washington, D. C.

Re: Department of Commerce

National Oceanic & .Atmospheric Adm. 

National Weather Service 

Pittsburgh, Pa.

Case No. 21-3825 (CA)

Dear Mr. Markman:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator's dismissal of the complaint in the above 

named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) of Executive 

Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I have concluded that a 

reasonable basis' for the complaint exists within the meaning of 

Section 203.8 of. the Assistant Secretary's Regulations. Accordingly, 

and noting that the issues raised herein can best be resolved on the 

basis of evidence adduced at a hearing, the case is remanded to the 

Assistant Regional Director for reinstatement of the complaint and 

the issuance of a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul .J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a r y 

W a s h i n g t o n , d .c . 20210

Mr« Amedeo Greco 

5310 Fairway Drive 

Madison, Wisconsin 53711

Re: National Labor Relations Board 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. £0-9546

Dear Mr. Greco:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator’s dismissal of the complaint 

in the above named case, alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and

(2) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

You contend that the time lag between your request for, and 

the Agency's submission of a corrected copy of, Assistant General 

Counsel Levine's report dealing with your grievance violated your 

rights under the Order. However, the evidence does not support this 

contention. Thus, the evidence shows that the alleged unreasonable 

delay in the presentation of the Levine report to you did not prejudice 

you in any respect in the further processing of your grievance or in 

the subsequent prosecution of your unfair labor practice charge and 

complaint.

With respect to your objection that you were prejudiced in 

the exercise of your rights under the Order by reason of the alleged 

restriction on your alleged right to disseminate broadly the Levine 

report, I agree with the disposition by the Regional Administrator 

that further proceedings in this regard are unwarranted. As stated 

in his ruling, "The blanket use of any and all types of personnel 

information is not a right guaranteed by the Order." The use of 

such information must be related to reasonable need for its employment in aid of the exercise of rights conferred by the Order. In 

the circumstances of this case, there was no evidence to indicate 

that widespread dissemination of the Levine report, which you 

apparently contemplated, was a necessary incident to a full exercise 

of your rights. Moreover, it seems apparent that the temporary 

restriction on dissemination of the Levine report placed on you by 

the De Sio letter of February 8, 1973, was, in effect, removed by 

the March 9, 1973, letter from General Counsel Nash.

DEC 3 9 1973

330

324
- 2 -

Further, you assert that "Section 19(a^(l) of Executive Order 

11491 accords Federal workers as individuals /the right/ to engage in 

protected concerted activity" and that this alleged right was violated 

by the actions of the Agency which discouraged or interfered with the 

rights of other bargaining unit employees to participate with and 

assist you in the processing of your grievance. Your assertion is 

inaccurate. The rights assured by the Order to employees, as set 

forth in Section 1(a), define the protected activity of an employee 

as "the right, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, to 

form, join, and assist a labor organization or to refrain from any 

such activity, . . . ." You note that "concerted activity" is not 

included as. a protected right in the language of^Sectio^ 1(a) of the 

Order. Nor does the evidence presented in the instant case show that 

the Agency interfered with or discouraged the filing or prosecution 

of your grievance in any manner that would constitute interference or 

discouragement which could be described as inherently destructive of 

rights specified in Section 1(a). See National Labor Relations Board 

Region 17, and National Labor Relations*~Board> A/SLMR No. 295, fn» 3, 

Thus, the evidence discloses that your grievance was filed and prosecuted 

through all the steps necessary to arrive at an ultimate disposition 

and that, following the Agency's final decision in the matter, an 

extension of time was granted by the Agency to the National Labor 

Relations Board Union in order that it might have sufficient time to 

decide whether to proceed to arbitration. While it is arguable that 

the Agency might have processed the grievance more promptly, it is my 

view that nothing done by the Agency in the course of processing the 

grievance can be said to have been inherently destructive of Section 

1(a) rights as discussed in A/SLMR No, 295„

Based on all of the foregoing and in agreement with the Regional 

Administrator, I find that further proceedings on your complaint are 

unwarranted. Accordingly, and noting that the evidence reveals that 

all the facts submitted by you, including those alleged in your letter )

of May 21, 1973, were considered by the Regional Administrator in 

connection with his decision, your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Regional Administrator's dismissal of your complaint, is denied*

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

DEC I 9 1973

Mr. Stephen F. Copeland

District II Vice President

National Labor Relations Board Union

c/o National Labor Relations Board QQ*!

1536 Federal Office Building O o x

1000 Liberty Avenue 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Re: National Labor Relations Board 

Region 8 

Case No. 53-7029

Dear Mr. Copeland:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 3, 1973 

which was received on December 5, 1973, regarding the refusal of 

the Area Administrator, Cleveland Area Office, to approve the 

Agreement for Consent or Directed Election executed by the parties 

on November 19, 1973.

I have been administratively advised that the parties have executed' 

a new consent agreement which has been approved by the Area 

Administrator.

I am pleased that the matter has been resolved.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

325
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

January 4, 1974

332

Re: Department of the Army 

Watervliet Arsenal 

Watervliet, N. Y.

Case No. 35-2885 (GP)

Dear Mr. Beeson:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Regional Administrator’s Report and Findings on Grievability and 

Arbitrability in the above named case.

The essence of your position is that the Regional Administrator’s action would permit Local 2352, American Federation of 

Government Employees, AFL-CIO, (AFGE), to process all grievances 

under the negotiated grievance procedure set forth in the negotiated 

agreement between Watervliet Arsenal and the AFGE, whether or not they 

are related to any negotiated provision of the agreement, and would 

thereby violate Section 13 of Executive Order 11491. Specifically, 

you contend that for the reason that there are no contractual provisions in the negotiated agreement specifically dealing with the 

Watervliet Arsenal local regulation concerning the wearing of headgear or its local directive concerning machine affixed production 

record cards, a grievance over enforcement of either directive may 

not be processed under the negotiated grievance procedure. In support 

of this contention, you rely on Article XII-Existing Practices and 

Relationships in the negotiated agreement as evidence of the parties' 

intent to exclude grievances, not derived from provisions of the 

agreement, from the negotiated grievance procedure.

In ray view, the grievances in this case do not raise issues 

as to whether the grievant violated an Arsenal regulation and rule, 

which would be processed under available administrative procedures, 

but rather the issues herein involve questions as to whether the 

Arsenal is enforcing the regulation and rule on an equitable basis, 

an obligation the Arsenal agreed to assume under the terms of Article 

XXXIX-Enforcement of Directives in the negotiated agreement. Moreover,

Mr. Ben B. Beeson 

Director of Civilian Personnel 

Department of the Army 

Office of the Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Personnel 

Washington, D. C. 20310

-2-

under the terms of that Article, the parties agree that grievances 

alleging misapplication of a contractual provision contained in the 

agreement are subject to the negotiated grievance procedure. It is 

my further view that the provisions of Article XXXIX must be read 

together with the provisions of Article XII. So read, I find.that it 

is in no way inconsistent with Section 13 of the Order to conclude that 

the subject matter of the grievances involved herein falls within the 

ambit of the negotiated agreement. Thus, under all of these circumstances, I find that the issues herein involve interpretation and 

application of Article XXXIX of the agreement, and are subject to the 

negotiated grievance procedure in that agreement.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking to set aside the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Grievability and 

Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

326
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

January 4, 1974

Mr. George Hardy 

International President

Service Employees' International 'J'lQ

Union, AFL-CIO 

900 - 17th Street, Suite 714 

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Butler, Pa.

Case No. 21-3923 (RO)

Dear Mr. Hardy:

I have considered carefully your request for review in which you 

seek reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s denial of the request 

for intervention in the above named case by Service Employees’ International Union, Local No. 227 (SEIU).

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director I find that the 

request to intervene filed on October 25, 1973 was untimely and must be 

denied for that reason. Thus, the evidence is that the official 

Assistant Secretary's Notice to Employees of the petition filed by 

Local R3-74, National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) was 

posted by the Activity on September 20, 1973. This notice, consistent 

with the requirements of Section 202.5 of the Regulations of the 

Assistant. Secretary, reads in part as follows:

"-- that in accordance with the Regulations of the

Assistant Secretary, any labor organization, including 

any incumbent labor organization, having an interest in 

representing the employees being sought and desiring to 

intervene in this proceeding MUST submit to the Area 

Administrator, within 10 days from the date of the posting 

of this notice /evidence of interest/ --." (Emphasis added)

Although the posted Notice to Employees was adequate notice to 

SEIU, the evidence indicates that SEIU was also put upon notice of the 

filing of NAGE petition in other ways, including receipt of a copy of 

the NAGE petition which, was filed on September 7, 1973, by one D.

Prozik on behalf of SEIU at Buffalo, N. Y. on September 7, 1973.

Further, a copy of a letter dated September 14, 1973, addressed to Mr. 

Paul A. Kennedy, Director of the Veterans Administration Hospital at 

Butler, Pa. from the Pittsburgh Area Administrator was sent to

t- 2 -

SEIU. This letter gave notice to the Activity that the NAGE petition 

had been filed and requested that certain information be supplied in 

connection with the processing of the petition. On the issue of 

actual notice it is noted that in a telephone conversation on October 

25, 1973, between Mr. James Lindsay, President of the SEIU Local and the 

Area Administrator, Mr. Lindsay stated that the only knowledge he had 

of the petition came when one of his supporters called him to report 

that a petition had been filed and that he told the caller not to do 

anything as "the Labor Department hasn't contacted us."

In addition, although the point was not mentioned in the dismissal 

letter of the Assistant Regional Director, it is noted that the letter 

requesting intervention dated October 25, 1973, was apparently not 

served on the other interested parties, thus, indicating a failure to 

comply with the simulteneous service requirement of Section 202.5(c) 

of the Regulations.

Under all of the circumstances I must conclude that SEIU had 

actual, as well as constructive notice of the filing of the NAGE petition 

by the Activity's posting of the notice of petition. My policy with 

respect to intervention by incumbent intervenors is well settled. See 

Section 202.5 of the Regulations and Report No. 43 dated December 14,

1971. (Copy enclosed) Incumbent intervenors, as well as other intervenors, must comply with the intervention requirements detailed by the 

Regulations.

Accordingly, and as good cause has not been shown for extending 

the period allowed for timely intervention, your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's denial of 

intervention, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

327
O p t i c b o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

/ - t L - 7 /

Mr. Herbert Collender 

President

Social Security Local 1760

American Federation of .

Government Employees 0 0 9

P. 0. Box 626

Corona Elmhurst, Mew York 11373

Re: Department of Health, Education 

' and Welfare

Social Security Administration 

New York Payment Center 

Flushing, New York 

Case No. 30-5150(GP)

Dear Mr. Collender:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

to set aside the Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on 

Grlevabillty and Arbitrability in the above named case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Regional 

Administrator's findings are erroneous as he based his findings on 

the premise that an "employee", as the term is used in Article 3, 

Section (b)(2) of the existing agreement, also includes a "supervisor. 

Basically, it is your position that the term "employee" includes only 

nonsupervisory employees and, thus, that the aforementioned Article 

of the negotiated grievance procedure would be inapplicable to a 

dispute involving a "supervisor."

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the Regional 

Administrator's conclusion that the matter in dispute is subject to 

the grievance procedure in the existing agreement and, thus, is 

grievable under such agreement. In my view, the conduct complained 

of herein by the Activity, i.e., the Local's alleged interference 

with the Activity's right to discipline supervisors, is a matter which 

comes within the scope of Article 4, Section (a) of the parties' 

existing agreement as well as Article 1 and Article 3, Section (b)(2) 

of such agreement.

- 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking to set aside the 

Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on Grlevabillty and 

Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary pf Labor

328
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Wesley Young 

Vice President

National Alliance of Postal o o c

and Federal Employees O O O

1644 11th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Rci Southeast Exchange Region Warehouse 

Atlanta Army Depot 

Forest Park, Georgia 

Case No. 40-5173(R0)

Dear Mr. Young■

X have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your RO 

petition in the above named case.

The Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your petition 

was based on the view that such petition did not meet the requirements 

of Section 202.5 of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary in that 

it was filed untimely, after the ten (10) day posting period had 

expired with respect to a petition covering the same employees filed 

by Local 554, Atlanta Federal and City Service Employees, Service 

Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, in Case No. 40-4968(RO).

In my judgment, your request for review raises issues as to 

whether there was a posting, or a proper posting, of the Notice to 

Employees in Case No. 40-4968(RO). Accordingly, I am remanding the 

case to the Assistant Regional Director for further investigation and 

consideration of the issues which you raise and for issuance of a 

supplemental ruling to the parties.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t u b A s s i s t a n t S k c r b t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 

/-

Mr. Patrick R. Sullivan 

Labor Relations Officer

Civilian Personnel Branch Q O C

Headquarters d o b

Warner Robins Air Materiel Area 

Robins Air Force Base, Georgia 31098

Re: Warner Robins Air Materiel Area 

Robins Air Force Base, Georgia 

Case No. 40-4939 (GA)

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings 

on Grlevabillty and Arbitrability in the above named case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Application 

filed in the instant case, requesting a decision as to whether 

certain grievances are subject to arbitration under the arbitration 

provisions of the parties' negotiated agreement, should be dismissed 

because, allegedly, the agreement was not in effect at the time the 

grievances were initiated, In this connection, you allege that tfiS 

December 15, 1971, Memorandum of Understanding by which the parties 

sought to extend the negotiated agreement is invalid because such 

Memorandum was never approved by the Activity's headquarters and, 

also, the arbitration provisions in the agreement do not comply 

with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Executive Order. You 

further contend that, even assuming that tho agreement was in effect 

at the time the instant grievances wore initiated, the Assistant 

Regional Director is barred from asserting jurisdiction in the matter 

by Section 13(e) of the Order and Section 205.2(b) of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations because the negotiated agreement herein 

became effective prior to November 24, 1971, the effective date of 

the amended Executive Order. Finally, you contend that the Application should be dismissed because there has been no determination 

by the parties that the matters herein are subject to arbitration 

under the negotiated agreement.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with the 

Assistant Regional Director, that the Assistant Secretary has Jurisdiction in this matter and that the grievances involved are subject 

to arbitration under the terms of the parties' negotiated agreement.
- 2 -

Thus, the evidence establishes that It was the Intent of the parties 

In signing the Memorandum of Understanding to extend the terms of 

the agreement until such time as the parties entered Into a new 

agreement* Also, by its terms, the Memorandum became effective 

on the date It was executed and there Is no evidence that such 

Memorandum was subject to the approval of the Activity's headquarters. 

Indeed, the evidence establishes that the parties applied the terms 

of the Memorandum on and after December 15, 1971, without any question 

being raised as to its validity. Further, w£>en the parties signed 

the Memorandum of Understanding I find that they, In effect, terminated 

their existing agreement and entered Into a new agreement dating 

from December 15, 1971, Accordingly, It is concluded that the instant 

application is not barred by Section 13(e) of the Order and Seotion 

205.2(b) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations,

With respect to the contention that the provisions of the 

agreement/do not comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the 

Order and that, therefore, further proceedings herein are unwarranted,

I find in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, that there 

is no indication in the Order that the Assistant Secretary's 

responsibility under Seotion 13(d) of the Order is, in any way, 

conditioned upon whether the grievance-arbitration provision of the 

agreement involved meets the criteria of Section 13(a). Moreover, 

there is a substantial doubt as to whether a party to an agreement 

has standing to question the propriety of Its own agreement. See, 

in this regard, General Services Administration Region 9, San Francisco, 

California, A/SLMR No. 333,

Finally, under all the circumstances, your contention that the 

Application herein should be dismissed because there has been no 

determination by the parties that the grievances are subject to 

arbitration under the agreement was rejected, noting particularly 

the fact that previously the Activity had consented to arbitrate 

the matter and that such contention was not .raised prior to the 

filing of the instant request for review.

Accordingly, and as there is no evidence that the Assistant 

Regional Director acted arbitrarily or failed to give adequate 

consideration to all evidence and arguments presented in the subject 

case, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant 

Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievability and Arbitrabllity, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O p p i c b o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S b c r b t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

I' -/£> - ] 4\

/ 's

Mr. Harold F. Barrett, Jr.

Grand Lodge Representative 

Local Lodge 830

International Association of Machinists 'i'i'7

and Aerospace Workers 

3133 Braddock Street 

Kettering, Ohio 45429

Rei U. S. Department of the Navy 

Naval Ordnance Station 

Louisville, Kentucky 

Case No. 41-3323(CA)

Dear Mr. Barrett:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

your complaint alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1), (2), (4), 

and (6) of the Executive Order, as amended.

I agree with the Acting Assistant Regional Director's 

dismissal of your complaint. In this regard, I view the Federal 

Labor Relations Council's decision on review of A/SLMR No. 139, dated 

August 8, 1973, as dispositive of the issues in this case. See 

Department of the Navy and the U. S. Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, 

Virginia, FLRC No. 72A-20. In that decision, the Council set aside 

the Assistant Secretary's decision, and found that the Order does not 

require agencies to grant official time to union witnesses at formal 

unit determination hearings. As explained in its decision, the 

Council's rationale applied to the Assistant Secretary's authority 

under Section 6(a) of the Order, although A/SLMR No. 139 was concerned 

only with the denial of official time to witnesses at unit determination 

hearings. The Council found further that the denial of official time 

to witnesses was not a violation of a right conferred by Section 1(a) 

of the Order, a necessary corollary of a Section 19 violation.

However, the Council also found that it would not be inconsistent 

with the Order for the Assistant Secretary to promulgate requirements 

by regulation dealing with the issue of the reimbursement of witnesses. 

Thus, the Council found that . , where the Assistant Secretary 

determines, based upon his experience, that, in order to administer

330
- 2 -

those aspects of his functions which require a formal hearing under 

Section 6(a)(1), (2), (3), (4)j and (5) of the Order, there is an 

established need for necessary witness /sic/ to be on official time 

for the period of their participation at such formal hearings, we 

would view it as consistent with the Order for the Assistant Secretary 

to promulgate an appropriate regulation pursuant to his authority 

under Section 6(d) of the Order*"

Following the Council's decision on November 8, 1973, I issued 

amendments to the Assistant Secretary's Regulations to provide that, 

among other things, necessary employee witnesses who appear at unfair 

labor practice hearings shall be granted official time, necessary 

transportation and per diem expenses by the employing agency or 

activity* Such amendments necessarily were prospective and not 

retroactive and, thus, would not apply to the instant case*

In view of all of the foregoing, and noting most particularly 

the Council's rationale that a denial of official time is not an unfair 

labor practice under the Order, I conclude that further proceedings on 

the instant complaint are unwarranted*

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint in 

the above cited case, is denied*

Sincerely,

Paul J* Fasser, Jr* 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S k c r b t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

/ r/c.-'i y

Mr. Ben B. Beeson 

Director of Civilian Personnel

Department of the Army o o Q

Office of the Deputy. Chief of 

Staff for Personnel 

Washington, D. C. 20310

Ba: Department of the Army 

Watervliet Arsenal 

Watervliet, New York 

Case No. 35-2892 <AJ>)

Dear Mr. Beeson:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Regional Administrator's Report and Findings on 

Orlevabillty and Arbitrability in the above named case.

The essence of your position is that the Department of the 

Army's Civilian Personnel Regulation 300-Merit Promotion and Related 

Placement Program, implementing Federal Personnel Manual Chapter 

335, is the controlling document for the administration of that 

Agency's plans for merit promotion and related placement. Thus, 

you contend that the provision in Federal Personnel Manual 335.

3-3e(3) (which permits the exercise of local discretion as to 

whether or not concurrent consideration is to be given to potentially 

available candidates outside the Agency before selection from a 

register of one highly qualified available candidate produced In 

the minimum area of consideration) is superseded by Civilian Personnel 

Regulation 300, 335.3-3d(2) 1, making it mandatory that concurrent 

consideration be given to candidates outside the Agency before such 

a selection can be made.

It is your further position that Article XXIX-Promotions, in 

the negotiated agreement, defines clearly grievances acceptable 

tinder the negotiated grievance procedure. And, you contend, under 

the above-mentioned Civilian Personnel Regulation, that the grievance 

in this case is not subject to the negotiated procedure.

Under the circumstances of this case, it appears that the 

Agency's Civilian Personnel Regulation 300 may be controlling. It 

was noted, however, that Civilian Personnel Regulation provisions 

implementing Federal Personnel Manual Chapter 335 are undated, while 

the Federal Personnel Manual provisions bear dates of issuance 

indicating they were in effect at the time the promotion plan to 

fill the vacancy for the Job of Crater was Initiated. These

331
- a -

circumstances preclude a dispositive ruling at this tine.

Accordingly, I am remanding this case to the Assistant 

Regional Director for appropriate Investigation to determine 

whether Civilian Personnel Regulation 300, 335.3-3d(2)(d) 1, was 

In effect on the date the promotion plan to fill the vacancy for 

the Crater position was Initiated. Further, he la dlreoted to 

Issue an appropriate suppleaental Report and binding?’.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20110

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

S J - J f

Mr. Horaer R. Hoisington 

Regional Business Agent

National Federation of 339

Federal Employees 

P. O, Box 870 

Rialto/ California 92370

Ro: Department of the Navy 

Pacific Missile Range 

Point Mugu, California

Case No. 72-4325

Dear ?ir. Hoi sing ton:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Assistant Regional Director’s Report and Findings on Objection 

wherein he set aside the October 4, 1973, election and ordered 

that a rerun election be conducted in the above named case.

The Assistant Regional Director’s Report and Findings on 

Objection, dated November 8, 1973, stated that pursuant to Section 

202.6(d) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations, an aggrieved 

party could obtain a review of his action by filing a request for 

review with the Assistant Secretary. It stated also that the 

request oust be received by the Assistant Secretary not later than 

the close of business on November 21, 1973.

Your letter requesting review of the Assistant Regional 

Director'8 Report and Findings on Objection, dated Novenber 19,

1973, was raailod at Rialto, California, and postmarked November 20,

1973. It arrived in my office subsequent to the November 21, 1973, 

due date and therefore, it was viewed as having been filed untimely

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings cannot be considered on its merits, and it is hereby denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

332
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

David S. Barr, Esq,

Barr and Peer ^ 4 0

Suite 1002

1101 Seventeenth Street, N. W.

Washington, D0 C. 20036

Re: U* S. Department of the Navy 

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

• , Portsmouth, Virginia

Case No. 22-3834(CU)

Dear Mr. Barr:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's decision in the above 

named case*

I am in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director that 

the failure of the International Federation of Professional and 

Technical Engineers, Local No. 1 (IFPTE) to serve copies of its 

request for intervention simultaneously on all interested parties, 

as required by Section 202.5(c) of the Regulations of the Assistant 

Secretary, warrants the denial of the intervention request. In this 

regard, your request for review fails to show good cause for the 

IFPTE's failure to comply with the prescribed procedural requirements 

or to raise any material issue which would warrant reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's action.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's denial of the IFPTE's request to 

intervene in the unit clarification proceeding, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O p f i c i; o f t u g A s s i s t a n t S l c u i-.t a h y c 2*„£

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 i

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Paul J. Hayes

NAGE Representative of Record

National Association of Government 3 4 1

Employees 

9 Edison Avenue 

Albany, New York 12208

Re: Department of the Navy

Naval Air Rework Facility 

Jacksonville, Florida

Case No* 42-2342

Dear Mr. Hayes:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of a complaint 

filed by the National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-82 

(NAGE) alleging that the Department of the Navy, Naval Air Rework 

Facility, Jacksonville, Florida (Activity) violated Section 19(a)(1) 

and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. The evidence reveals that under the 

terns of the current negotiated agreement between the Activity and 

N'AGE, which is scheduled, to expire on or about July 9, 1974, only the 

appropriate stewards and the chief steward may represent the NAGE and 

errployee grievants during the processing of grievances under the 

negotiated grievance procedure and that the Activity has refused 

NAGE's request to reopen the agreement for, among other things, the 

proposed modification of the above noted provision. It is your 

contention that the Activity, by refusing to agree to reopen the 

agreement and by insisting on adhering strictly to the agreement 

provisions in issue, is violating the rights of the NAGE and rights 

of the employees to be represented by representatives of their own 

choosing. You also contend that the Assistant Regional Director in 

allegedly defining the issue in the case as whether the Activity was 

acting within its rights when it refused to consent to reopen the 

agreement, defined the issue too narrowly and, therefore, reached an 

incorrect decision. In this connection, you contend the Assistant 

Regional Director failed to note the alleged fact that the Activity 

vas obligated to reopen the agreement because certain provisions 

therein conflict with Section 13(a) of the Order.
- 2 -

It is concluded that the Activity's conduct in the subject 

ease did not establish a reasonable basis for the complaint under 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order. Thus, in my view, it was under 

no obligation to agree to reopen the agreement to renegotiate the 

provisions in question. Nor is there anything inherently improper in 

a labor organization agreeing, contractually, to restrict itself and 

those employees it represents concerning which of its representatives 

may be selected to assist in the processing of grievances under a 

negotiated grievance procedure* Your contention that the Activity was 

obligated to reopen.the agreement because certain of its provisions 

allegedly conflict with Section 13(a) of the Order was rejected. In 

this connection, it was noted that the provisions referred to do not 

relate to the specific issue raised herein and that, further, there 

was no evidence that such alleged conflicting provisions were raised 

with the Assistant Regional Director prior to the filing of the instant 

request for review.

A ccordingly, and noting the absence of any evidence that the

Assistant R e g ional D i r e c t o r failed to give adequate consideration to

the evidence and issues presented in the subject case, your request

for review, seeking reversal of the dismissal of the complaint'by the

Assistant R e g ional Director, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J, Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O n iCK o k n n i A s s i s t a n t S i-c iu -t a u y

washing i o n . n .c . »o>io 

X - ti " 7 '/

Mr. Robert C. Sinclair 

President, Unit "2

National Association of 'iAO

Coveranent Inspectors 0*4/1

3310 Curley Road

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19154

Re: iiaval Air Engineering Center 

Naval Air Systems Command 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Case Ho. 20-4275(CA)

Dear Mr. Sinclairi

This is in connection with your request for review of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint in 

the above named case.

It is found that the request for review in this natter is 

procedurally defective in that, contrary to the requirement of 

Section 202.6(d) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, a 

copy of the request for review was not served on the Acting Assistant 

Regional Director, although you were advised to do so in the dismissal 

letter.

Accordingly, the merits of the case have not been considered 

and your request for review, seeking reversal of the Acting Assistant 

Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

334
OracK o f t u b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

FEB H1974

Roger P. Kaplan, Esq. 

General Counsel 

National Association of 

Government Employees 

1341 G Street, N. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re:

343

West Virginia ^ r National Guard 

Charleston ANG Base 

Kanawha Airport 

Case No. 21-3862(CA)

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

the setting aside of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's 

approval of the Settlement Agreement in the above-named case*

You contend that the subject Settlement Agreement would 

serve to resolve satisfactorily your unfair labor practice complaint 

in this matter alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended, only if: (1) Colonel Leonard 

Hash's name were to be mentioned specifically in certain specified 

paragraphs in the body of said Agreement, and (2) Colonel Leonard 

Hash were to affix his signature in the space on said Agreement 

designated for the signature of the Respondent.

Under all of the circumstances, X conclude that the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director's approval of the Settlement Agreement 

in the subject case was appropriate. In this regard, I am of the 

view that under the Order it is appropriate that the head of the 

particular respondent agency or activity sign any settlement reached 

as distinguished from a particular supervisor who may have been 

directly involved in the violative conduct. Moreover, I agree with 

the Acting Assistant Regional Director's conclusion that the naming, 

in the body of the Settlement Agreement, of the particular individual 

alleged to have committed the unfair labor practice is not necessary 

to effect an appropriate remedy.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking the setting 

aside of the Acting Assistant Regional Director*s approval of the 

Settlement Agreement in this matter, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J« Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

February 26, 1974

Mr. Geoffrey D. Spinks 

Labor Relations Advisor

Labor Disputes & Appeals Section 344

Office of Civilian Manpower Management 

Department of the Navy 

Washington, D. C. 20390

Re: Department of the Navy 

Naval Ammunition Depot 

Crane, Indiana 

Case No. 50-9667

Dear Mr. Spinks:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's Report and 

Findings on Grievability in the above named case.

The essence of your position is that the evidence overall 

established that the termination of probationary employees, and the 

circumstances surrounding such termination, are not covered by the 

terms of the current agreement between the Activity and Local 1415, 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) and that, 

consequently, Richard L. Shoultz, a probationary employee, has no 

right to process a grievance in connection with his termination 

through the negotiated grievance procedure.

In my view, there is sufficient evidence upon which one may 

reasonably conclude, as contended by the AFGE, that probationary 

employees are protected from improper termination by Article XX 

(Acceptable Level of Competence) of the negotiated agreement, and 

have a right under such agreement to process grievances concerning 

their terminations through the negotiated grievance procedure.

I, therefore, conclude that, in circumstances such as these, 

where the matters in dispute involve the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the parties' negotiated agreement, 

and the agreement provides a means by which such dispute may be 

resolved, it will effectuate the pruposes of the Order to direct the 

parties to resolve the dispute through their negotiated grievance 

procedure. Thus, it is concluded that the issue as to whether 

Shoultz' termination is covered by the terms of the instant agreement 

as well as the issue as to whether the Activity violated such agreement 

in its treatment of Shoultz, should be resolved through the negotiated 

grievance procedure.

335
- 2 -

Accordingly, and noting the absence of any evidence which would 

support your contentions that the Acting Assistant Regional Director 

acted arbitrarily or failed in any way to give adequate consideration 

to all the evidence and arguments presented in the case, your request 

for review, seeking to set aside the Acting Assistant Regional 

Director’s Report and Findings on Grievability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c h o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

2/28/74

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ur. Frank E. Anderson 

President, Local 128

American Federation of Government a j ^

Employees, AFL-CIO 

Poet Office Box 401 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45201

Re: General Services Administration 

Region V, Communications Division 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

Case No. 53-6453

Dear Mr. Anderson:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the subject petition 

filed by Local 128, American Federation of Government Employees, 

AFL-CIO.

In my view, your request for review raises material Issues 

of fact which can best be resolved on the basis of record testimony.

Accordingly, I am remanding the case to the Assistant Regional 

Director for the issuance of a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

336
FEB 2 8 1974

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

William B. Peer, Esq.

Barr & Peer 

Suite 1002

1101 Seventeenth Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Federal Aviatj^on Administration 

Washington, D. C. r>

Case No. 22-4058(CA)

Dear Mr. Peer:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint 

alleging that the Federal Aviation Administration (Agency) violated 

Section 19(a)(5) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

You allege that the Agency violated the Executive Order by 

failing to designate the Professional Air Traffic Controllers 

Organization (PATCO), affiliated with the Marine Engineers Beneficial 

Association, AFL-CIO, as a participant in the functioning of a 

Microwave Landing System Advisory Committee. In view of the PATCO's 

capacity as the exclusive representative of the Agency's Air Traffic 

Controllers, you contend that the PATCO has a right to participate in 

the subject Microwave Committee in that the work of the Microwave 

Committee ", . „ and the concepts with which the Committee is working, 

all impact or have a propensity to impact the job of the controller, 

the work load, his work assignments, his tenure, his very employment, 

and possibly his unemployment." In this regard, you contend further 

that the Acting Assistant Regional Director's determination in this 

matter is, among other things, erroneous and in direct conflict with 

the Report of the Assistant Secretary, No. 35, in that his determination was allegedly based upon his assessment of the merits of 

your complaint and that such findings and conclusions were ones which 

should not have been rendered without a hearing.

Under all of the circumstances, X conclude, in agreement with 

the Acting Assistant Regional Director, that there is insufficient 

basis upon which to issue a notice of hearing and that, therefore, 

the instant complaint was dismissed properly. I rejcct your contention 

that the decision of the Acting Assistant Regional Director was in 

direct conflict with the Report of the Assistant Secretary, No. 35,

- 2 -

and find, in agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director, 

that the evidence establishes that the work of the Microwave Committee 

is of a technical nature in that it will be involved solely in advising 

the Agency and others of the various technical and conceptual problems 

in the establishment of a new navigational landing system. From the 

evidence submitted, I am satisfied that the Microwave Committee Will 

not be determining personnel policies, practices, or other matters 

affecting employee working conditions as they relate to the proposed 

establishment of the microwave landing system. In view of the purely 

"technical" focus of the Microwave Committee, I have determined that 

the Agency's establishment of the Microwave Committee and its decision 

as to who would be the participating members on the £ubjectCommittee 

are rights reserved to agency management under Section 11(b) of the 

Executive Order, which states, in part, that "• • • the obligation to 

meet and confer does not include_matters with respect to . » • the 

technology of performing « • • /an Agency *_s/work „ . „ Accordingly,

X conclude, in agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director, 

that there is no reasonable basis upon which to issue a notice of 

hearing in this matter.

It should be noted, however, upon the actual^ determination by 

the Agency that the subject navigational system will be established, 

there is nothing to preclude the PATCO, as the exclusive representative 

of the Agency's Air Traffic Controllers, from seeking to meet and 

confer with the Agency with respect to the impact of any technological 

change on unit employees or with respect to the procedures management 

will observe in effectuating any technological change. Cf. Veterans 

Administration Research Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, FLRC No. 71A-31;

Naval Public Works Center, Norfolk, Virginia, FLRC No. 71A-56; Uni ted 

States Department of Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Great Lakes 

Naval Hospital, Illinois, A/SLMR No. 289; Federal Aviation Administration, 

National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, Atlantic City, New 

Jersey, A/SLMR No. 329; and U0 S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Indian Affairs Data Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico,

A/SLMR No. 341.

On the basis of the above findings I find, in agreement with 

the Acting Assistant Regional Director, that a reasonable basis for 

the instant complaint has not been established,, Accordingly, your 

request for review seeking reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional 

Director*s dismissal of your complaint in the instant case is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

337
FEB 2 8 1974

Mr* Herbert Cahn 

President, Local 476 

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

P. 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Ft* Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3317^.0.

Dear Mr. Cahn:

X have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint filed by National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 

476 (NFFE) in the above named case, alleging violations of Section 

19(a)(6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all the circumstances, I find, in agreement with the 

Assistant Regional Director, that further proceedings in this matter 

are unwarranted. It is your contention that the Activity violated 

Section 19(a)(6) of the Order when it made certain revisions in its 

Career Appraisal procedures without first consulting with the NFFE, 

the exclusive representative of certain of the Activity's employees.

In this connection, the evidence establishes that the subject 

revisions originated at higher headquarters and that such revisions 

were made applicable uniformly to a number of subordinate activities.

Under all of the circumstances, and consistent with the 

principles set forth in Department of Defense, Air Force Defense 

Language Institute, English Language Branch, Lackland Air Force Base, 

Texas, A/SLMR No. 322. which holds that;'higher level published 

policies and regulations which are applicable uniformly to more than 

one Activity may properly limit the scope of negotiations, I find 

that the Activity was not required to bargain with the NFFE concerning 

the issuance of the above-noted revised procedures.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director s dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S i j c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c b o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

FEB 2 8 1974

Mr. Frederick Benedict 

2351 Olive Avenue 

Fremont, California 94538

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Western Region 

San Francisco, California 

Case No. ^70-4067

Dear Mr. Benedict:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint in the above named case.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. In this regard, I have noted your 

contention that the remark by Mr-. Frank Dailey, FAA Supervisor to 

Mr. Darrell Reazin, Regional Vice President of the Professional Air 

Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) that "Dr. Raymond had a 

strong case against Benedict" discouraged PATCO from representing you. 

In my view, such statement, standing alone, does not establish a 

reasonable basis for the complaint. As indicated in the Assistant 

Regional Director's letter of dismissal, Section 203.5(c) of the 

Assistant Secretary's Regulations provides that the Complainant 

shall bear the burden of proof at all stages of the proceeding 

regarding matters alleged in the complaint.

Accordingly, as a reasonable basis for the complaint has not 

been established in this matter, your request for review; seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

338
FEB 2 8 1974

Mr. Frederick Benedict 349

2351 Olive Avenue 

Fremont, California 94538

Re; Federal Aviation Administration 

Western Region 

San Francisco, California 

Case No. 70-4068

Dear Mr, Benedict;

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint in the above named case.

In essence, it is your contention that the prescribed ninemonth period for the filing of an unfair labor practice complaint 

after the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practice should be 

waived in the subject case because of the fact that you did not have 

knowledge of certain written communications (which constituted the 

basis of the alleged violations) until sometime after the expiration 

of the prescribed filing period. It is your further contention that, 

under the aforementioned circumstances, a waiver of such filing 

requirements is justified under the theory of "discovery,"

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that further proceedings with respect to the instant complaint are 

unwarranted. As indicated in the Assistant Regional Director's letter 

of dismissal, Section 203.2(b)(3) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations requires, among other things, that a complaint be filed 

within nine months of the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor 

practice* Under the circumstances of this case, I find that no basis 

exists for the granting of a "waiver" of the timeliness requirement.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y £

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 1

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

MAR - J 1974

Mr. Robert M* Tobias 

Counsel

National Treasury Employees 

Union 

1730 K Street, N. W.

Suite 1101

Washington, D. C. .20006

Re: Internal Revenue Service 

Washington, D. Co 

Case No0 22-4056(CA)

Dear Mr. Tobias:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of a complaint 

filed by National Association of Internal Revenue Employees and 

Chapter No. 071 (name changed to National Treasury Employees Union, 

(NTEU)), alleging that the Internal Revenue Service (Activity) 

violated Section 19(a)(1), (2) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as 

amended*

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the action of 

the Assistant Regional Director and find that further proceedings in 

this matter are unwarranted.

In your request for review, you contend that the Activity 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by refusing to permit 

an employee to be accompanied by a representative of your labor 

organization at an interrogation of the employee by an Activity 

inspector concerning the employee's tax return. You assert that 

there are "certain undisputed facts in this case" but that a hearing 

would be required to bring out "many additional facts „ . . ." If 

you possess additional relevant facts which would have provided a 

basis for the complaint, these must have been supplied during the 

investigation of the complaint. As provided by Section 203.14 of 

the Assistant Secretary's Regulations, the burden of proof of 

allegations of a complaint lies with the Complainant. (See Assistant 

Secretary Report No. 24.)

The fact disclosed by the investigation, and the respective 

positions of the parties, is that the investigative interview of 

the employee involved herein was conducted by the Inspection Service 

of the Activity in order to bring out facts relating to the employee's

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c k o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20210

339
- 2 -

personal income tax return* Under all of the circumstances, I find 

that such interview did not constitute a formal discussion within 

the meaning of Section 10(e) of the Order and that, therefore, NTEU 

was not required to have been afforded the opportunity to be represented at the interview. In this regard, it was noted that the 

interview, at issue, did not concern a grievance nor did the matters 

discussed at the session involve personnel policies and practices or 

other general working conditions of unit employees,, Rather, the 

interview related to a single IRS employee's obligation to file 

timely a proper Federal tax return.

In my view, the recent holding in Department of Defense, 

National Guard Bureau, Texas Air National Guard, A/SLMR No. 336, is 

controlling herein* That case raised the question whether certain 

"counselling" sessions between an employee and a superior officer, 

relating to the employee's alleged wearing of improper clothing and 

his engaging in alleged verbal abuse, constituted "formal discussions 

within the meaning of Section 10(e) of the Order*" It was found that 

the sessions involved did not relate to grievance processing, or 

general working conditions or work performance but rather related 

solely to an individual employee's alleged misconduct and his failure 

to adhere to an established rule. The instant case was considered to 

fall within the rationale of A/SLMR No. 336. Compare U0 S. Department 

of the Army, Transportation Motor Pool, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, A/SLMR 

No. 278, in which it was established that the resolution of the 

grievance involved therein would have a general impact on all the 

employees in the unit. Under such circumstances, it was concluded 

that the Respondent's failure to afford the Complainant the opportunity 

to be represented at the formal discussion involved therein violated 

Section 19(a)(6) of the Order. Moreover, it was found that Section 

19(a)(1) was violated where the Respondent denied an employee's 

request for representation during the formal discussion*

Accordingly, and noting that your request for review raised 

no issue with respect to the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal 

of the Section 19(a)(2) allegation, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the dismissal of the complaint by the Assistant Regional 

Director, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

MAR 4 1974

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr. Herbert Cahn 

President, Local 476

National Federation of o c u

Federal Employees O 0 X

P. 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3329(CA)

Dear Mr. Cahn:

This is in connection with your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint in the subject case alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1) 

and (2) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

I find that the request for review is procedurally defective 

in that it was filed untimely with the Assistant Secretary. The 

Assistant Regional Director issued his decision in this matter on 

January 25, 1974, and, as you were advised therein, a request for 

review of that decision must have been received by the Assistant 

Secretary no later than the close of business February 7, 1974.

Your request for review was, in fact, received in my office subsequent 

to the February 7, 1974, due date and, therefore, it was viewed as 

having been filed untimely.

Under these circumstances, the merits of the case have not 

been considered and your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's decision dismissing the complaint, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

340
O p FICE OF T H E A SSIST A N T SE C R ET A R Y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

va 

, <£>•

MAR 6 1974

Mrs. Marcella M. Kilpatrick

5500 lennis Avenue

Fort Worth, Texas 76114

352

Re: General Services Administration 

Region VII 

Federal Supply Service 

Fort Worth, Texas 

Case No. 63-4509(CA)

Dear Mrs, Kilpatrick:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint in the above named case, alleging violations of Section 

19(a)(1), (2) and (4) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director* I find 

that further proceedings on the subject complaint are unwarranted.

For the reasons cited by the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

the allegations that the Activity (1) failed to promote you because 

of your union affiliation and participation in union activities, and

(2) denied your right to representation at a meeting called to 

discuss a grievance which you attempted to file concerning the 

allegedly discriminatory non-selection for promotion were not timely 

under Section 203.2(a)(2) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations 

which requires that a "charge must be filed within six (6) months of 

the oocurrcnce of the alleged unfair labor practice," I find 

further that, in regard to the alleged refusal of the Activity to 

grant access to its established grievance procedure, a reasonable 

basis for the complaint was not established in that you have offered 

no evidence to indicate a link between the denial of access to the 

grievance procedure and your labor organization membership or related 

activity. Also, with reference to the 19(a)(4) allegation of the 

complaint, I find that no evidence was presented that you were 

disciplined or otherwise discriminated against because you filed a 

complaint or gave testimony under Executive Order 11491, as amended.

The allegation raised for the first time in your request for 

review that you were discriminated against by reason of an "acrossthe-board promotion" in your work area cannot be considered. It is 

established policy that evidence or information furnished for the first 

time in a request for review will not be considered by the Assistant 

Secretary. See Report Number 46 (copy enclosed).

- 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr„ 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

March 6, 1974

Mr. Julius Berman

Social Security Administration

Chicago Payment Center O O O

165 North Canal Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60608

Re: Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare, Social Security 

Administration, Chicago Payment 

Center 

Case No. 50-9671

Dear Mr. Berman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings 

on Grievability in the above-named case wherein he found that the 

issue raised in the application was not grievable under the terms 

of the negotiated agreement.

In your request for review you assert that the unresolved 

question requiring determination is "whether or not the grievance 

was grievable under the negotiated agreement" rather than "whether 

the employee's rights were denied under the Federal Personnel 

Manual 771-1," as stated in the subject application. In support of 

y£ur position you cite Article 17, covering overtime and related 

requirements and Article 19, pertaining to leave. In addition, 

Article 28, Section c is cited, which provides that the negotiated 

grievance procedure "shall be the exclusive procedure available to 

employees in the unit for resolving grievances over the interpretation or application of' this agreement."

I find, in agreement with the position taken in your request 

for review, that the grievance regarding the granting of one hour 

annual leave and two hours overtime is on a matter subject to the 

grievance procedure under the negotiated agreement. Accordingly and 

noting that under Section 13(a), where a negotiated grievance 

procedure is applicable, it is the exclusive procedure available to 

the parties and unit employees for resolving the grievance involved, 

your request for review is granted and the Assistant Regional 

Director's finding to the contrary is hereby set aside.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

March 6, 1974

Charles Barnhill, Jr., Esq.

Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Bronner OOft

22 East Huron Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Region V 

Chicago, Illinois 

Case No. 50-9135

Dear Mr. Barnhill:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of a complaint 

filed by the 0E0 Local 2816, American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), alleging that Office of Economic Opportunity, 

Region V, Chicago, Illinois (Activity) violated Section 19(a)(6) of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. The evidence reveals that on March 8,

1972, the AFGE sent a memorandum to the Activity seeking information 

with regard to its position on an alleged backlog in processing grantee 

audits. The AFGE memorandum stated that the alleged failure reflected 

adversely on the employees represented by the AFGE, on the AFGE itself 

and on the mission and reputation of the Activity. The Activity 

denied the AFGE's request on the ground that it failed to conform with 

guidelines recently established by the Activity for dealing with labor 

relations matters. On August 11, 1972, the AFGE filed an unfair labor 

practice charge with the Activity alleging a failure to consult on the 

issue of audit review policy as required by Section 19(a)(6) of the 

Order. Representatives of both parties met on September 20, 1972, but 

the AFGE took the position that a meeting on that date did not cure the 

Activity's earlier refusal to consult. The AFGE took the position that 

it would consult regarding the issue of audit review policy only if the 

Activity acceded to certain demands which were outside the realm of 

either its original request or its unfair labor practice charge. The 

Activity rejected the demands and the AFGE refused to consult regarding the audit review policy. You contend that the Assistant Regional 

Director erred in concluding that the Activity, by its meeting of 

September 20, 1972, offered to consult regarding audit review policy, 

as you feel that a policy that consultation on an issue five months 

after a request for same was made could be destructive to labor 

organizations.

342
- 2 -

It is concluded that a reasonable basis for the complaint 

under Section 19(a)(6) of the Order was not established. A violation 

of Section 19(a)(6) of the Order occurs when an activity refuses to 

consult, confer, or negotiate as required by the Order. Agencies and 

exclusive representatives are obliged by Section 11(a) of the Order 

to meet and confer in good faith with respect to personnel policies 

and practices and matters affecting working conditions. Section 

11(b) of the Order excludes from this obligation matters with respect 

to the mission of an agency, its budget, its organization, the 

number of employees and the number, types, and grades of positions 

of employees assigned to an organizational unit, work project or 

tour of duty, the technology of performing its work and its internal 

security practices. The request by the AFGE, the denial of which 

constituted the basis for the complaint in this matter, concerned 

information regarding the audit review practices of the Activity, 

subject matter which I find to be within the exclusionary language 

of Section 11(b) of the Order, as such subject matter involved the 

technology of performing the Activity's work. As the information 

sought does not fall within the mandate of Section 11(a) of the 

Order, the Activity was not obliged to meet and confer with the AFGE 

regarding such subject matter and, therefore, its failure to do so 

was not violative of Section 19(a)(6) of the Order.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

dismissal of the complaint by the Assistant Regional Director, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h l A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

T

Charles Barnhill, Jr., Esq. 'i'SS

Davis, Miner, Barnhill 81 Bronner 

22 East Huron Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Region V

Chicago, Illinois 

Case No. 50-9141

Dear Hr. Barnhill:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's partial dismissal of 

the subject complaint filed by the OEO Employees Local 2816, American 

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), alleging violations 

of Section 19(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Executive Ordei11491, as amended, Dy tne Office of Economic Opportunity, Region V, 

Chicago, Illinois (Activity).

In his letter of November 30, 1973, the Assistant Regional 

Director found, among other things, that the Activity's agreeing to 

meet with AFGE representative Wayne Kennedy on June 22, 1972, had 

effectively-cured its earlier refusal to meet with Kennedy as 

expressed in its memorandum of April 14, 1972, and that, therefore, 

dismissal of the allegations in the complaint with respect to that 

refusal was warranted. You were further informed that because of a 

lack of evidence constituting a reasonable 'oasis for the 19(a)(2),

(3), (4), (5) and (6) allegations of the complaint, the Assistant 

Regional Director was dismissing those allegations. Finally, you 

were advised that a reasonable basis existed for the 19(a)(1) 

allegation in the subject complaint with regard to the action of the 

Activity in restricting the use of agency time and prohibiting the 

use oi uiie AruE's onice for the purpose of preparing unfair labor 

practice complaints.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that a reasonable basis 

for the complaint exists with respect to the allegation that the 

Activity's April 14, 1972, refusal to meet with a representative 

designated by the AFGE to handle certain unfair labor practice charges 

was violative of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order. Accordingly, 

that portion of the complaint is remanded to the Assistant Regional 

Director for reinstatement of the 19(a)(1) and (6) allegations of 

the complaint and the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

343
’.Vith respect to the Section 19(a)(2), (3), (4) and (5) 

allegations, I find, in agreement with the .Assistant Regional 

Director, that you have failed to present evidence which would 

establish a reasonable basis for the complaint and that, therefore, 

such allegations must be .dismissed.

Sincerely, '

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

'51374

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o r t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

M r. K erm it I. Tull

National Vice President

D istrict 9, A m erican Federation of

Government Em ployees, A FL-C IO

3214 Tinker Diagonal

Suite E

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

356

Re: D efense-A ir F o rce H eadquarters,

U. S. A ir Force

Tinker A ir Force B a se , Oklahoma

C ase No- 63-4577 (CA)

D ear Mr Tull:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

re v e rsal of the A ssistan t Regional D irector's d ism issa l of your

com plaint filed in the above-nam ed c ase .

It is concluded that under all of the c irc u m stan c e s a re a so n ­

able b a s is for the instant 19(a)(1) and (6) com plaint w as establish ed .

Accordingly, your request for review seeking re v e rsal of the d is ­

m issal of your complaint is granted and the A ssistan t RegionalD irector is directed to reinstate the complaint and to issu e a notice

of hearing, absent settlement.

(

Sincerely,

Paul J . F a 3 se r, J r .

A ssistan t Secretary of Labor

344
MAR 2'.2 1974

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c b o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Mr, Dolph David Sand

Staff Counsel

American Federation of ^*>7

Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W*

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Department of Air Force 

Griffiss Air Force Base 

Rome, New York 

Case No. 35-2929 E.O.

Dear Kr. Sand:

Your letter of March 18, 1974, is acknowledged and 

your request to withdraw your request for review in the 

subject case is hereby granted.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 3, 1974

Mr. Thomas E. Swain

National Vice President

American Federation of Government

Employees, Tenth District 358

4347 South Hampton Road 

Suite 125

Dallas, Texas 75232

Re: Health Services Command

Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, 

Texas

Case No'. 63-4776 (R0)

Dear Mr. Swain:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s denial of your request 

for intervention in the above-entitled matter.

It is concluded that the Assistant Regional Director's action 

was warranted inasmuch as the request for intervention was not 

supported by a showing of interest of ten percent or more of the 

employees in the unit involved as required by Section 202.5(a) of the 

Assistant Secretary’s Regulations. In addition, no evidence was. 

submitted to support your claim that any of the employees now employed 

at the Health Services Command were formerly included in any unit 

which was represented by either AFGE Local 2154 or AFGE Local 2169 or 

that your intervention request was made on behalf of either of these 

locals.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the denial of your request for intervention by the Assistant Regional 

Director, is denied.

Sincerely,

P a u l J. Fasser, Jr.

A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y of L a b o r
U.S. L/£i.JA i\ i A i i : A O i ; i-AijOR

O i-K ici- o p v ijt i A s s i s t a n t S i - c u e t a r y 

W a s h i n g t o n , d .c . 20210

Ms. Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney 

National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration 

Data Processing Center 

Austin, Texas 

Case No. 63-4719(CA)

Dear Ms, Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review in which 

you seek either reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal 

of the complaint in the above named case, alleging violation of Section 

19(a)-(2) and (3) of Executive Order 11491, as amended, or, in the 

alternative, that the Section 19(a)(1) violation "inherent in this 

complaint" be recognized and that the case go to hearing on that basis*

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that a reasonable basis for the complaint under Section 19(a)(2) and

(3) of the Order has not been established. However, I find that a 

reasonable basis for your complaint under Section 19(a)(1) of the 

Order has been established. With respect to the fact that Section 

19(a)(1) was not specifically alleged to have been violated in the 

instant complaint, see U0 S. Department of the Air Force, Air Force 

Communications Service (aFCS), 2024th Communications Squadron, Moody 

Air Force Base, Georgia, A/SLMR No. 248, in which the Assistant 

Secretary adopted an Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to 

treat a complaint as charging a violation of a particular section 

of the Order (numerically omitted) where "the body of the complaint 

charges conduct that would be a violation of that subsection . . . ."

As I am persuaded that sufficient evidence has been presented 

in the instant case to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint 

under 19(a)(1), your request for review is granted and the case is 

remanded to the Assistant Regional Director who is directed to reinstate 

the complaint, and, upon appropriate amendment by the Complainant, to 

issue a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 3, 1974

Mr. Irvin J. Hawkins

U.\S. Geological Survey 'MJft

Department of the Interior O O U

P. 0. Box 133 

Rolla, Missouri 65401

Re: -Department of the Interior 

U. S. Geological Survey 

Rolla, Missouri 

Case No. 62-3832 (DR)

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your 

challenge to the intervention by Local 934, National Federation of 

Federal Employees (NFFE) in the subject case.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, I agree with 

the Assistant Regional Director's finding that the NFFE's intervention 

request met the requirements of Section 202.5(c) of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations. Thus, the NFFE's intervention request, 

which you indicate was received by you on November 26, 1973, was 

timely filed within the meaning of Section 206.1 of the Assistant 

Secretary's Regulations in that the tenth day of posting, November 24,

1973, was s Saturday. With respect to the NFFE's alleged failure to 

serve simultaneously its intervention request on all parties, I find 

that the service of identical handwritten letters on both you and 

the Department of Interior's U. S. Geological Survey, Rolla, Missouri 

(Activity) on November 26, 1973, giving notice of the intervention 

request, constituted' compliance with the requirements of Section 

202.5(c) of the Regulations although not worded in identical language 

to the request for intervention.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's decision dismissing your challenge to 

the intervention request of the NFFE, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

346
O i'F ic ii o f TH ii A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON', D.C. 20210

V-3-7/

U.S. DEPAi\ . u i; A13OR

Charles Barnhill, Jr., Esq© QC-I

Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Bronner O D X

22 East Huron Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Region V 

Chicago, Tllinois 

Case No. 50-8578

Dear Mr. Barnhill:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint in the subject case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1),

(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of the Executive Order.

I have concluded that no reasonable basis was supplied for 

the 19(a)(2), (3), (4), and (5) portions of the complaint but that 

a reasonable basis exists for the 19(a)(1) and (6) allegations. 

Accordingly, the Assistant Regional Director is directed to reinstate 

the complaint as to the 19(a)(1) and (6) allegations and to issue a 

notice of hearing.

Among the issues which should be explored at the hearing are 

the following:

le Did the Respondent violate Sections 19(a)(1) and 

(6) of the Order by its memorandum of February 1,

1972?

2. Did the settlement by the parties of a U. S.

District Court: suit alleging that the Respondent's 

memorandum of February 1, 1972, violated the rights 

of the Complainant also resolve the instant unfair 

labor practice complaint?

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

4-3-74

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Gary B. Landsman 

Staff Counsel

American Federation of 3 6 2

Government Employees 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Re: U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command 

Warren, Michigan 

Case No. 52-4956

Dear Mr. Landsman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's refusal to 

approve a bilateral settlement agreement entered into after a hearing began before an Administrative Law Judge on alleged violations 

of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under Section 203.7(a) of the Regulations of the Assistant 

Secretary, an Assistant Regional Director has the authority, among 

other things, to determine whether a satisfactory written settlement agreement has been entered into. In this case, the Acting Assistant Regional Director determined that a satisfactory written 

settlement agreement had not been executed by the parties and that, 

therefore, dismissal of the subject complaint was not warranted. The 

Regulations make no provision for the review by the Assistant Secretary of a refusal by an Assistant Regional Director to approve proposed settlements of unfair labor practice complaints under Section 

19 of the Order.

Therefore, unless a new settlement agreement is submitted to 

the Assistant Regional Director which is acceptable to him, or alternatively, unless the Complainant unconditionally requests withdrawal of its complaint in this matter and such withdrawal request 

is approved, the Assistant Regional Director is directed to issue 

a notice to the parties rescheduling the hearing in this matter 

which was opened on December 4, 1973, and adjourned.

Accordingly, the request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director’s refusal to approve the proposed 

bilateral settlement of the complaint herein, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

347
O f f i c u o p T iiii A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y ,f.

W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. L»LlJAi\. ; iVxjj,X i OP LABOR

Mr. Alan J. Whitney 

Executive Director

National Association of Government O C Q

Employees v O O

1341 G Street, X. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Department of Army, Headquartei-s 

U. S. Army Training Center 

Engineer and Fort Leonard ’food, 

Missouri 

Case No. 62-3655 (R0>

Dear Mr. Whitney:

I have considerod carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the dismissal by the Assistant Regional Director of 

three objections to ar. election held on January 15, 1974.

The deadline for-the filing of the objections in question 

was before the close of business on January 22, 1974. In fact, the 

objections in question were mailed from Washington, D. C., to the 

St. Louis Area Office on the afternoon of January 21, 1974, and were 

received after the deadline date. The Assistant Regional Director 

dismissed the objections as untimely filed under Section 202.20(b) 

of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, noting also that the 

requirement of Section 202.20(b), that an original and two copies of 

the objections bo filed with the Area Administrator, was not met. 

Further, he noted that service upon the Area Administrator in 

Washington, D. C., did not meet the requirements for timely filing 

set forth in Section 202.20(b).

In your request for review you urge that service on the 

Washington Area Office should “satisfy the timeliness requirement 

in the event mail delivery to the St. Louis Area Administrator was 

delayed" .... and that "a liberal construction be placed on the 

requirement of Section 202.20(b)" on tho basis that because of 

uncertain mail deliveries "the five-day time limit for filing of 

objections, particularly where mail delivery over relatively lon~ 

distances is involved, is neither realistic nor fair to the objecting party."

- 2 -

I find, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, 

that dismissal of the objections in question on the basis of 

untimeliness was warranted. Thus, as outlined above, the evidence 

establishes that objections in this matter were required to be 

filed before the close of business on January 22, 1974, that they 

were mailed from Washington, D. C. to the St. Louis Area Office 

on the afternoon of January 21, 1S74, and that they were received 

untimely. Under these circumstances I find that no basis exists 

for extending the time period prescribed in Section 202.20(b) of 

the Assistant Secretary’s Regulations. I find, further, that 

service of the objections upon the Washington, D. C. Area Administrator did not satisfy the requirement for timely sr^vice-upon the 

St. Louis Area Administrator in whose geographical area the 

election was conducted.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of tho 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the objections, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

348
O f f i c e o i : t h i : A s s i s t a n t S ^ c r c t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

rt &

Charles Barnhill, Jr., Esq. 'IfcA

Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Bronner 

22 East Huron Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Region V 

Chicago, Illinois 

Case No. 50-8300

Dear Mr. Barnhill:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's'.partial dismissal of 

the.complaint in the above named case alleging violations of Section

19(a)(1), (2) and (3) of Executive Order 11491.

In dismissing the allegations that Lorelei Rockwell had been 

"(1 ) denied short term training, (2) detailed out of a permanent 

job, (3) denied long term training, and (4) denied recognition as 

elected Federal Women's Program Coordinator" because of her union 

activities, the Assistant Regional Director concluded that no 

reasonable basis existed to show that the Respondent discriminated 

against Rockwell based on her membership in and activities on behalf 

of Local 2816, AFGE. In addition, he found that no evidence was 

submitted to support the allegation that the Respondent improperly 

sponsored, controlled, or otherwise assisted a labor organization. 

Based on the foregoing, the Assistant Regional Director dismissed 

the allegations regarding violations of Section 19(a)(2) and (3) of 

the Order* However, the Assistant Regional Director found, with 

respect to the alleged interrogation of Rockwell by the Respondent 

regarding the authorship of a union leaflet, that such alleged 

interrogation interfered with, restrained and coerced her in the 

exercise of her rights assured by the Order and, therefore, that a 

-reasonable basis existed for this alleged violation of Section 

19(a)(1) of the Order. He further found that the allegation that 

the Activity refused to meet with Rockwell’s representative required 

the filing of a new charge as a basis for the filing of a complaint 

alleging that such conduct was violative of the Order.

In your request for review you state essentially that there 

is a substantial credibility issue here involved as to the dismissed 

portions of the complaint and that the evidence submitted, standing

- 2 -

alone, constitutes a prima facie case of unfair labor practices by the 

Respondent. You further state, with respect to the dismissal of that 

portion of the complaint dealing with the Respondent's alleged refusal 

to meet with Rockwell's representative, that the Assistant Regional 

Director's reasoning that a pre-complaint charge was necessary to 

support this allegation, in effect, precludes an "amendatory procedure 

with respect to unfair labor practice complaints."

With respect to the allegation that Rockwell was denied short 

term training for discriminatory reasons, I find that there is 

insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint 

that the denial of short term training was based on union membership 

or union activity considerations. Accordingly, your request for 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint 

with respect to this allegation is denied. - •

As to the allegation that the Respondent improperly refused 

to meet with Rockwell's representative, it was noted that this 

allegation was not previously contained in the pre-complaint charge 

filed with the Respondent. It is established policy that allegations 

raised for the first time in a complaint are inappropriate in that 

such allegations have not been subject to the pre-complaint charge 

procedure set forth in Section 203.2(a) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations. See, in this regard, Assistant Secretary Report No. 16. 

Accordingly, your request for reversal of the Assistant Regional 

Director's dismissal with respect to the allegation in the complaint 

that the Respondent refused to meet with Rockwell's representative 

is denied. Moreover, I find, in agreement with the Assistant Regional 

Director, that no evidence was submitted to support a violation of 

Section 19(a)(3) of the Order.

With respect to remaining portions of the complaint dismissed 

by the Assistant Regional Director, I find that, under all of the 

circumstances, a reasonable basis for the complaint exists, and, 

accordingly, the subject case is remanded to the Assistant Regional 

Director for reinstatement of those portions of the complaint and 

the issuance of a notice of hearing. In this regard, in addition to 

the issue of the alleged improper interrogation of Rockwell by the 

Respondent regarding the authorship of a union leaflet, issues which 

should be explored at the hearing should include the following:

1. Did the Respondent detail Rockwell out of her 

permanent job because of her union membership or 

union activities?

2. Did the Respondent deny long term training to 

Rockwell because of her union membership or 

activities?

349
- 3 -

3. Did the Respondent deny Rockwell recognition as 

the elected Federal Women's Program Coordinator 

because of her union membership or activities?

Sincerely,

Paul J* Fasser, Jr* 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

V

Oppjcji o p t h u A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20210

U.S. DEPAR.MENV OP LABOR

Charles Barnhill, Jr., Esq. . __

Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Bronner O O O

22 East Huron Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Re:, Office of Economic Opportunity 

Regioi. V 

Chicago, Illinois 

Case No. 50-9142

Dear Mr„ Barnhill:

I have considered your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint 

in the subject case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1), (2),

(3), and (5) of the Executive Order.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that no reasonable 

basis was established for the 19(a)(2), (3) and (5) portions of 

the complaint but that a reasonable basis exists for the 19(a)(1) 

allegation. Accordingly, the Assistant Regional Director is 

directed to reinstate the complaint as to the-19(a)(1) allegation 

and issue a notice of hearing.

Among the issues which should be explored at the hearing 

are the following:

1. Did the Respondent violate Section 19(a)(1) of 

the Order by its memorandum dated March 14,

1972, to the President of 0E0 Employees Union,

Local 2816, American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO?

2. Did the settlement by the parties of a U. S.

District Court suit alleging violations of 

constitutional rights of the Complainant also 

resolve the instant unfair labor practice 

complaint?

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

350
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 3, 1974

William R. Tait, Jr., Esq.

McNerney, Page, Vanderlin & Hall 

433 Market Street 

Williamsport, PA 17701

Re: U. S. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Prisons 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 20-4276 (CA)

Dear Mr. Tait:

I have considered carefully your request for review in which you 

seek reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

the complaint, as amended, in the above-named case, alleging violation 

of Section 19(a)(1), (2), (4), and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as 

amended. /

In agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that under all of the circumstances further proceedings on the subject 

complaint are unwarranted. Thus, I find that you have not established a 

reasonable basis for the complaint that the Activity interfered with Mr. 

Medford's rights assured by the Order and discriminated against him 

because of his union membership or activities. Nor does the evidence 

establish a reasonable basis for the complaint on any other ground. In 

the request for review, additional evidence is offered regarding Mr. 

Medford's attendance at a meeting of the incentive awards committee in 

his capacity as union representative, and events occurring at that meeting. 

This matter is raised for the first time in the request for review. As 

there is no allegation that this evidence is new discovered, was previously 

unavailable, or that other unusual circumstances exist, it cannot be 

considered, being raised for the first time in the request for review.

See, in this regard, Report on a Ruling of the Assistant Secretary No.

46. (Copy enclosed).

Accordingly, your request,for review, seeking reversal of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O fjic E o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, P.O. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

APR 23 1974

Mr. George Hardy 

International President 

Service Employees International 

Union, AFL-CIO 

900 17th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

Butler, Pennsylvania 

Case No. 21-3923(RO)

Dear Mr. Hardy:

This is in connection with your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Report and Findings on Objections of the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director, which sustained certain objections 

filed by the National Association of Government Employees, Local 

R3-74,. the Petitioner in the subject case, to an election held on 

February 27, 1974, and ordered a rerun election.

It was concluded that your request for review cannot be 

considered as your organization is not a party to the subject case, 

having failed to intervene timely pursuant to the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations as previously ruled by the Assistant Regional Director on 

November 5, 1973, which ruling was sustained by the Assistant Secretary 

on January 4, 1974.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c p . o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON'. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

Ms. Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney

National Federation of 368

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration 

Data Processing Center 

Austin, Texas 

Case No. 63-4760(CA)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint in the above named case alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

further proceedings under Section 19(a)(2) are unwarranted in that 

a reasonable basis has not been established with respect to the 

allegation that management encouraged or discouraged membership in 

a labor organization by discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure, 

promotion, or other conditions of employment. However, I find that 

a reasonable basis for a 19(a)(1) complaint has been established based 

on the alleged disparaging statements concerning a union officer, made 

in the presence of other employees, by an alleged representative of 

the Activity.

As I am persuaded that sufficient evidence has been presented 

in the instant case to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint 

under Section 19(a)(1), your request for review is granted, in part, 

and the case is remanded to the Assistant Regional Director who is 

directed to reinstate that portion of the complaint alleging a 

violation of 19(a)(1) and to issue a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J e Fasser, Jr 0

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O : . • • v th e A s sista n t S e c re ta ry -t J:.i

SINGTON. D.C. 20210 \ >£•.

U.S. i . Oi- L,i\iiOiv

Mr. George Tilton

Associate General Counsel Q C Q

National Federation of Federal Employees 00*7

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Naval Missile Center

Point M’lgu, California j

Case No. 72-43/9

Dear Mr. Tilton:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings,on 

Objections in the above named case.

It is found that the request.for review in this matter is 

procedurally defective in that, contrary to the requirement of Section. 

202.6(d) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, a copy of the 

request for review was not served on the Assistant Regional Director, 

although you were advised to do so in the decision of the Assistant 

Regional Director.

Accordingly, the merits of the.case have not been considered 

and your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional 

Director's Report and Findings on Objections, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary.of Labor

352
</ - S o -

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

o r f i C E o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

Mr. Joseph J. Chickillo 

3922 Pechin Street 

Philadelphia, Pa. 19128

370

^ * ' N r'V

\ m i . '■i ►!<<>'

Re: National Federation of 

Federal Employees 

Washington, D*C,

Case No. 20-4300 (CO)

Dear Mr. Chickillo:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint 

in the above named case alleging violations of Section 19(b)(1), (2) 

and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. Thus, as found by 

the Assistant Regional Director, I find that the National Federation, of 

Federal Employees (NFFE) did not violate Section 19(b)(1), (2) and (6) 

of the Order by refusing to provide you with legal counsel at a hearing 

pertaining to "Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity" complaints 

filed against the Naval Air Engineering Center as there is no evidence 

that the failure or refusal to provide such legal counsel was based on 

invidious or discriminatory reasons. Moreover, I note that a NFFE representative was designated to act as your representative at the hearing 

involved.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint 

is denied.

Si n cerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 30, 1974

Mr. George Tilton 

Assistant General Counsel

National Federation of Federal 3 7 1

Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

.Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: U. S. Army Aviation Systems 

Command 

St. Louis, Missouri 

Case No. 62-3092(RO)

Dear Mr. Tilton:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal, based on 

procedural grounds, of your objections to the conduct of the runoff 

election in the above captioned case.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, it was 

concluded that your request for review should be granted. Thus, 

the evidence established that subsequent to a runoff election held 

on January 17, 1974, timely objections were filed by the National 

Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) on January 23, 1974. Thereafter, the evidence demonstrates that, within the prescribed ten 

day period subsequent to the filing of its objections, the NFFE 

attempted to file supporting evidence with, the apptdpriate Area 

Administrator but such evidence was not received by the latter 

because it was returned to the NFFE on January 31, 1974, by the 

St. Louis Central Postal Station for insufficient postage. Subsequently, the NFFE resubmitted the supporting evidence which was 

received by the appropriate Area Administrator on February 5, 1974.

Based on the foregoing, it was found that in view of the 

demonstrated good faith attempt by -the NFFE to submit supporting 

evidence in the subject case within the prescribed time period, it 

would be inappropriate to dismiss the NFFE's objections herein on

353
the basis of untimeliness. See; in this regard, Section 206.8(b) 

of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations. Accordingly, it was 

concluded that the subject case should be remanded to the Assistant 

Regional Director for reinstatement of the dismissed objections and 

for consideration of such objections on their merits.

Sincerely,

/

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 30, 1974

David G. Jennings, Esq. 0*7 p

Goodstein and Jennings 

2124 Dorchester Road

North Charleston, South Carolina 29405

‘Re: Charleston Naval Shipyard 

Charleston, South Carolina 

Case No. 40-4978(CA)

Dear Mr. Jennings:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of a complaint, 

filed by Mr. J. A. Crayson, an individual, alleging that Charleston 

Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina (Activity) violated 

Sections 19(a)(1) and (4) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. The evidence reveals that Mr. Grayson 

is a chief Steward for the Federal Employees Metal Trades Council of 

Charleston (MTC). Under the provisions of the negotiated agreement 

between MTC and the Activity, Council Chief Stewards are allotted up 

to twelve hours official time each week for the prupose of representing 

unit employees. The agreement also provides that time spent in consultation with the Activity will not be charged against the weekly 

allotment. On two occasions, April 13 and May 25, 1973, Mr. Grayson 

requested official time, which requests were rejected by his supervisors in the belief that Mr. Grayson had used the time available time 

in those weeks. In both instances, Mr. Grayson immediately asked for 

annual leave to pursue his request with the Industrial Relations Office 

of the Activity and subsequent investigation by that office showed that 

he did have time available, which time he subsequently was allowed to 

use. Mr. Grayson filed grievances, pursuant to the negotiated agreement, to have reinstated the annual leave he had used to correct what 

were later shown to be mistakes on the part of his supervisors. In 

each case, his grievance prevailed and his annual leave was reinstated, 

Official passes which MTC representatives must have approved by their 

supervisors, prior to their using official time, state the places a 

representative may go in pursuance of his function. On May 21, 1973, 

Mr. Grayson was reprimanded for having been in an unauthorized location 

on April 25, 1973, while using official time for union representation 

duties.

354
-2-

Under all of the circumstances, I find that the evidence fails 

to establish a reasonable basis for the subject complaint. Rather, the 

evidence established that the denials of official time herein were 

based on a misunderstanding as to whether time already spent on union 

business should be charged to the twelve hour allotment for representation or to the apparently unlimited time allotted for consultation. 

Further, I find that there was insufficient evidence to establish a 

reasonable basis for the complaint that the reprimand by the Activity 

was discriminatorily motivated. Finally, it is found that no evidence 

was presented to establish a reasonable basis for the Section 19(a)(4) 

allegation of the complaint.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DiiPAi(TiMliNT Oi; LABOR

O f f i c e o i' T in : A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y £ "j 'i *

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 B ^3? ,3

Mr, Stephen D. Poor 

National Field Representative

National Treasury Employees ‘i’7'1

Union J J

Suite 1101 - 1730 K Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Internal Revenue Service 

Southeast Region 

Chamblee, Georgia 

Case No. 40-5246 (CA)

-Dear Mr. Poor:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the 

complaint filed by the National Troasury Employees Union and NTEU 

Chapter No, 070 alleging violation of Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances disclosed by the investigation 

in the subject case, 1 conclude, in agreement with tho Assistant 

Regional Director and essentially for the reasons advanced by him 

in his decision, that a reasonable basis for the complaint in this 

matter does not exist.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c i i o f t h u A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEM KTM EN i' OF LABOR

Mr. Wallace Roney 

Acting President

Washington, D. C..U.S. Marshals 'VJA

Association, Ind.

Post Office Box 1349 

Washington, D, C* 20013

Ro: U. S, Marshals Service 

District of Columbia 

Caso No. 22-5174 (RO)

Dear Mr* Roney:

I have considered carefully your request for review of tho 

Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the RO petition 

filed in the above-named case by the Washington, D, C« United 

States Marshals Association, Ind.

I find that the Acting Assistant Regional Director’s 

dismissal action was warranted as tho subject cross-petition was 

not timely filed in accordance with Soction 202.5(b) of the 

Assistant Secretary’s Regulations and in tho absence of sufficient 

evidenco establishing good cause for extending the posting period 

of tho initial petition in Case No. 22-5070 (RO). Further, I 

find no indication of any improper statements or conduct on the 

part of any LMSA Area Office employee, other than your bare 

assertions, which in any way might have prejudiced your position 

in this matter.

The allegation raised for tho first time in your request for 

rovicw that the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 

2272*s waiver of exclusive recognition in Case No. 22-2070 (RO) 

was illegal and Invalid cannot bo considered. Evidence or information furnished for tho first time in a request for review will 

not be considered by the Assistant Secretary. See, in this regard, 

Roport Number 46 (copy enclosed).

Under all of these circumstances, your request that the 

dismissal of tho subject petition by the Acting Assistant Regional 

Director be reversed, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O , ; :- v T im A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

v.W.'.HINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. IV .WRTMENT OP LABOR

Mr. E. V. Curran 

Director

Office of Labor Relations 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Curran:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievability or 

Arbitrability.

In your request for review, you contend that those policies 

and practices which are derived from the Federal Aviation Administration's 

(FAA) System Error Review Reporting Program are not covered specifically 

in the negotiated agreement between the FAA and the Professional Air 

Traffic Controllers Organization, affiliated with the Marine Engineers 

Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO (PATCO) and, thus, are not grievable 

under that agreement by virtue of the proscription contained in Section 

13(b) of Executive Order 11491, as amended. In addition, you disagree 

with the Assistant Regional Director's finding that the requirement of 

recertification is a condition of employment affecting the working 

conditions and the retention of air traffic controllers and argue that, 

in the instant case, the grievant's assignment to training due to his 

involvement in a "systems error” had no effect on his working conditions 

or his retention. You allege further that qs the FAA's Orders 8020.3A 

and 7210.3A were basically unchanged from October 1, 1972, predating 

the execution of the negotiated agreement, effective April 4, 1973, the 

Assistant Regional Director failed to note that Article 5, Section 2 of 

the negotiated agreement requires consultation with the PATCO ". . . prior 

to implementing changes in personnel policies . . . ." In this respect, 

you maintain that, as no personnel policy changes were effected subsequent 

to the negotiation of the agreement, the FAA had no obligation under 

the agreement to consult with the PATCO on any aspect of the System 

Error Review Reporting Program. Finally, you contend that the System 

Error Review Reporting Program is an operational matter and, thus, under 

Section 12(b) of the Order is not a matter subject to negotiation or 

consultation with the PATCO.

h a y h m

375

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, D. C„

Case No. 22-5142(AP)

356
Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the conclusion of 

the Assistant Regional Director that the unresolved issues herein involve

- the interpretation and application of the negotiated agreement and, thus, 

are arbitrable pursuant to the terms of that agreement. In my view, the 

grievance i-n this case has resulted in a dispute between the parties as 

to the interpretation and application of certain express provisions of 

the negotiated agreement. In this regard, particularly noted were the 

parties' opposing positions with respect to the scope and intent of 

Article 5 of the agreement as applied to the instant grievance, and the 

provision of Article 7, Section 8, of the agreement which states that 

"disputes" under Article 5 shall be considered dispute^, involving the 

interpretation and application of the agreement. On the basis of the 

above, I find that the grievance involved herein should be resolved in 

accordance with the negotiated grievance arbitration procedure. Other 

arguments which you raise in your request for review are best left to 

the arbitrator for decision on the merits of the grievance.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking to set aside the 

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievability or 

Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J, Fasser, Jr, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

MAY 14 ]974

Mr, Ronald L, Owens 

8485 Dover Way 

Arvada, Colorado 80005

Re: Airways Facility

Federal Aviation Administration 

Denver, Colorado 

Case No. 61-2274(DR)

Dear Hr. Owens:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your 

petition in the subject case seeking to decertify Local 2665, American 

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) as the exclusive 

representative of a unit of all nonsupervisory electronic technicians 

and Wage Board employees assigned to the Denver Airways Facility 

Sector (Activity).

I find, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, 

that dismissal of the petition in this matter is warranted. Thus, 

the instant petition was deemed to be untimely on its face in that 

it was not filed within the prescribed 60 to 90 day period prior to 

the expiration of the negotiated agreement between the Activity and 

the AFGE, As a consequence, the petition is barred under Section 

202.3(c) of the Assistant Secretary*s Regulations, Further, I find 

no probative evidence to support your contention that you were given 

erroneous information by a Labor-Management Services Administration 

official with respect to the date upon which you could file your 

petition in a timely manner.

Under the foregoing circumstances, your request for review, 

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

the instant petition, is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20210

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

376

Sector

357

'tier.-*
7*/

U.S. DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR

O f F I C E O F T H E A SS IS T A N T SE C R E T A R Y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Michael L. Shakman, Esq. 

Devoe, Shadur & Krupp 

203 South LaSalle Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60604

377

Dear Mr. Shakman:

Re: VA Research Hospital 

Chicago, Illinois 

Case No. 50-11052(RO)

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's finding that the 

existing negotiated agreement between the Activity and Veterans 

Administration Independent Service Employees Union (Independent) 

does not constitute a bar to an election in the subject case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I reject 

your contention that the existing agreement bars the petition filed 

herein by Local 73, General Service Employees Union, Service Employees 

International Union, AFL-CIO (GSEU). As the one year extension of 

the agreement occurred approximately four months before the original 

termination date of the agreement, such extension is viewed as being 

prenature and, therefore, cannot serve as a bar to a timely petition. 

Your attention in this regard is directed to Section 202.3(e) of 

the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary which relates to this 

point.. In this regard, it is noted that the change in the agreement 

bar rule from two to three years in 1972 was not intended to provide 

a means for acting inconsistent with the premature extension rule 

contained in the Regulations. Under these circumstances, the petition 

in the subject case which was filed by GSEU on August 31, 1973, and 

which date falls within the open period defined by Section 202.3(c)(1) 

of the Regulations, is considered to be timely.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

action of the Assistant Regional Director rejecting your challenge 

to the subject petition as untimely, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

A s s i s t a n t Secretary of L a b o r

May 31, 1974

378

Mr. William R. Cole 

3641 Marvin

St. Louis, Missouri 63114

Re: United States Army

Adjutant General Publications 

Center 

St. Louis, Missouri 

Case No. 62-3838 (CA)

Dear Mr. Cole:

I have considered carefully your request for review in which 

you seek reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of 

the complaint in the above named case, alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

I find that while the 19(a)(4) allegation contained in your 

complaint was not cited, either specifically or in substance, in the 

pre-complaint charges filed with the Commander of the U. S. Army 

Adjutant General Publications Center (Activity) on September 21, 1973, 

your 19(a)(2) allegation was not only specifically cited, but the 

substance of this allegation was incorporated clearly into the 

September 21, 1973, letter of charges. Thus, while I agree with the 

Assistant Regional Director's determination that your 19(a)(4) allegation 

cannot be considered in view of its failure to meet the pre-complaint 

charge requirements of Sections 203.2(a)(3) and 203.3(a)(3) of the 

Assistant Secretary's Regulations, I have determined that your 19(a)(2) 

allegation should be considered to be a part of the instant complaint.

I conclude, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, 

that based on Section 19(d) of the Order, your 19(a)(1) and (2) 

allegations cannot be entertained. In this regard, I find that all 

of the issues which you raise in your 19(a)(1) and (2) allegations have 

been fully grieved through step three of the negotiated grievance 

procedure and, thus, these same issues may not be raised also as unfair 

labor practices under Section 19 of the Order. On the above basis, I 

agree with the dismissal of the 19(a)(1) and (2) allegations as contained 

in the instant complaint.

While I agree with the Assistant Regional Director's conclusion 

that further proceedings bn your 19(a)(5) allegation are unwarranted,

I find that the Commanding Officer's refusal to continue to arbitration 

of Mr. Fulkerson's grievance, after processing it through the third

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t i i i; A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

358
step of the negotiated grievance procedure, established a reasonable 

basis for a complaint under Section 19(a)(6) of the Order, although 

Section 19(a)(6) was not specifically alleged to have been violated 

in the instant complaint. See, in this regard, U. S. Department of the 

Air Force, Air Force Communications Service (AFCS), 2024th Communications 

Squadron, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, A/SLMR No. 248, in which the 

Assistant Secretary adopted an Administrative Law Judge*s recommendation 

to treat a complaint as charging a violation of a particular section 

of the Order (numerically omitted) where "the body of the complaint

charges conduct that would be a violation of that subsection ....... "

In finding a reasonable basis for the complaint under Section 19(a)(6),

I note particularly that the negotiated agreement between the parties 

was executed on May 5, 1970, was an agreement of indefinite duration, and, 

therefore, was still in effect at the time Mr. Fulkerson's grievance was 

filed. Thus, in view of the fact that the negotiated agreement involved 

herein was entered into prior to November 24, 1971, the otherwise applicable provisions of the Order, as amended, contained in Section 13(d), 

as implemented by Part 205 of the Assistant Secretary’s Regulations, were 

inoperative. In light of this finding, I have determined that the Order's 

unfair labor practice procedures would be the appropriate vehicle for 

determining the issue of the Activity's refusal to arbitrate the subject 

grievance. See Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 290 and Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard, Department of the Navy, Bremerton, Washington, A/SLMR No. 

332.

As I am persuaded that sufficient evidence has been presented in 

the instant case to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint under 

19(a)(6), your request for review is granted, in part, and the case is 

remanded to the Assistant Regional Director who is directed to reinstate 

the complaint, and, upon appropriate amendment by the Complainant consistent with the above rationale, to issue a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

- f t

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

Mr. Otto J. Thomas 

President, Overseas Federation

of Teachers >-i q

DGF HS Box 19 ^ ^

HavSta - Rota 

TPO New York 09540

Re: Department of Army

U. S. Dependents School 

European Area 

Torrejon, Spain 

Case No. 22-3988 (RO)

Dear Sir. Thomas:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Report and Findings on Objections of the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director, which found your objection to the 

conduct of the election in the subject case to be without merit.

In your objection you state that a voter appeared at a time 

close to but prior to the scheduled closing of the polls and that 

she was not permitted to vote on the basis that the ballot box had 

been sealed and the polls were closed- In agreement with the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director, I find your objection to be without 

merit. Thus, the evidence disclosed that observers for all of the 

parties had agreed that when the designated closing hour arrived 

the polls should be closed, there being no other individuals present 

and seeking to vote. Under these circumstances and noting that all 

of the observers signed the "Certification on Conduct of Election" 

form, certifying, among other things, that the balloting was fairly 

conducted and that all eligible voters were given an opportunity to 

vote their ballots in secret, it was concluded that the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director's finding that the objection had no 

merit was proper.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of L a b o r

359
O n IC E O r T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

L'.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

JUN 1 8 1974

:-!r. Lewis M. Scaggs 

Representative for Complainant 

P.* 0. Box 205

Warner Robins, Georgia 31093

O O A

Mr. John W. Davis O O U

Route ?1, Box 6

Marshallville, Georgia ,31057

Re: American Federation of Government 

Employees, Local 987, AFL-CIO 

Warner Robins, Georgia 

Case No. 40-5215(00)

Gentlemen: y

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint 

in the above named case alleging violation of Sectio'n 19(b)Cl) and (2 ) 

of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. Thus, it is found 

that the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987, AFL-CIO 

did not violate Section 19(b)(1) and (2) of the Order, as alleged, by 

surveillance of the Complainant's activities and by making charges 

about the Complainant to his supervisor. In my view, the mere fact 

that the Complainant was asked to join the Respondent labor organization 

2nd declined, without more, does not establish a reasonable basis for 

the complaint in the absence of any evidence that the Complainant was 

singled out for disparate treatment because he is not a member of, or 

refused to join, the Respondent labor organization.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

corplaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of L a bor

JUN 1 8 1974

Mr. Philip R. Kete 

President, Local 2677 

Representative, National Council of 

OHO Locals 

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1200 19tb Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20506

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Case Nos. 22-5178 (AP) and 

22-5189 (AP)

Dear Mr. Kete:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Grlevablllty and Arbitrability in the above named cases.

In your request for review, you contend that the Assistant 

Regional Director erred in stating that "an arbitrator may not be 

put in a position of interpreting the agreement which might result 

in a finding repugnant to the Executive Order" and make a finding 

that "the decision whether or not to fill vacancies is a right 

covered by Section 12(b) of the Executive Order." In this connection, 

you contend that "the Assistant Regional Director should not have 

applied any rule in determining arbitrability other than those used 

by courts in the private sector and that the rule enunciated by him 

is inconsistent with the intent of the Executive Order and the rights 

of the parties." In,addition, you contend that the Assistant Regional 

Director's finding that the question of whether to fill vacancies is 

covered by Section 12(b) should be reversed as not being based on 

authority or reason, and that arbitration should not be barred simply 

because an arbitrator nay find that a remedy is not available.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that tho issues herein involve management rights under Section 12(b) 

of the Order and, thus, are outside the scope of the contractual 

grievance-airbitration procedure. See Veterans Administration Research 

Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, FLRC No. 71A-31; Charleston Naval Shipyard. 

FLRC ?io» 72A—33: and Naval Public Works Onn'ort Norfolk, Virginia,

FLRC J.o. 7IA-SG. In this regard it was noted that the gravamen of your 

grievance involves the Activity's failure to post and fill certain 

vacancies. In my view, the filling of vacancies is a right clearly

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 I f e i

360
reserved to management under Section 12(b) which, in accordance 

with the rationale of the above cited decisions of the Federal Labor 

Relations Council, is not subject to waiver through negotiations.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s Report and Findings on 

Grievability or Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

irJU N 1 8 1974

John P, Helm, Esq*

Staff Attorney 

National Federation of

Federal Employees ^

1737 H Street, N. Yf

Washington, D, C, 20006

Re: Department of Army 

Rock Island Arsenal 

Headquarters and Installation 

Support Activity 

Hock Island, Illinois 

Case No* 50~966S(RO)

Dear Mr, Helm:

I have considered carefully your request fdr review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director*s dismissal of objections 

to the election filed by Local 15, National Federation of Federal 

Employees (NFFE) in the above named case.

Section 202.20(b) of the Regulations of the Assistant 

Secretary provides, in pertinent part, that '’The objecting party 

shall bear the burden of proof at all stages of the proceedings 

regarding all matters raised in its objections."

I conclude, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, 

and ttfased on his reasoning, that the National Federation of Federal 

Employees, Local 15, failed to meet its prescribed burden of proof 

in support of the objections filed. In reaching my conclusion' herein, 

I have considered the matters rnised by your request for review, 

but find that they point to no facts which would require a different 

conclusion.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of t'he 

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections is 

denied,

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o p t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

A ssistant Secretary o f L a b o r
O r r ic E o f r u t : A s s i s t a n t S k c r t .t a r v

Wa s h i n g t o n , l' . c . ; j : io

U.S. DEPARTM ENT OI; LABOR

JUN 18 1974

Mr£ Howard L. Yingling 

Director, Providence Office 

Defense Mapping Agency 

Topographic Center 

Brookside Avenue

West Warwick, Rhode Island 02893

Re: Defense Mapping Agency 

Topographic Center 

Providence Office 

West Warwick* Rhode Island 

Case No. 31-7566(AP)

Dear Mr. Yingling:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s Report and Findings 

on Grievability in the above named case.

In your request for review, you allege that the American 

Federation of Government Employees, Local 1884, AFL-CIO (AFGE) has 

not demonstrated that the Providence Office has violated, misinterpreted 

or misapplied any provision of the negotiated agreement between the 

Providence Office and the AFGE. The essence of your position is that 

the filling of the position of Security Specialist (General) is not 

subject to the provisions of Article XXI, entitled "Promotions", of 

the negotiated agreement and that the content of the subject grievance 

is not appropriate for processing under the negotiated grievance 

procedure.

In my view, the subject agreement does not clearly exclude the 

position of Security Specialist (General) from the bargaining unit, and 

hence it was concluded that the filling of this position arguably is 

subject to the provisions of Article XXI of the agreement. It is 

concluded therefore that the issue as to whether questions related to 

the procedure in filling of the position of Security Specialist (General) 

are subject to the terms of Article XXI of the agreement should be 

resolved through the negotiated grievance-arbitration procedure.

- 2 -

Accordingly, and noting the absence of any evidence which would 

indicate that the Assistant Regional Director acted arbitrarily or 

failed in any way to give adequate consideration to all the evidence 

and arguments presented in the case, your request for review, seeking 

to set aside the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Grievability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr* 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

362
JUN 18 7974

M s * G p.h p B e r n a r d !

President, Local 3217 

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

Arden Road 

Berkeley, California 94704

Re: Pacific Southwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station,

Forest Service, USDA 

Berkeley, California 

Case No. 70-4033

Dear Ms. Bemardi:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director*s partial dismissal of 

the 19(a)(5) and (6) complaint in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

a reasonable basis was not established with respect to those allegations 

of the complaint which were dismissed. Thus, no reasonable basis was 

found for those allegations of 19(a)(6) violations detailing certain 

alleged failures to consult with the Complainant. As the Assistant 

Regional Director found, in some cases the evidence showed that no 

changes in policies or practices had, in fact, occurred. In other 

instances he found that the alleged reorganization plans, over which 

bargaining on implementation and impact might properly take place, had 

not been completed. I also agree that the alleged failure to consult 

on "many policies and directives . . . because of refusal to supply 

the Local with copies of Washington Office letters and directives" is 

too broad an allegation, and that, as the Assistant Regional Director 

found, "there is no blanket requirement that all communications between 

a national office and its management in the field on such a broad range 

of subjects be provided to a labor organization." Finally, I agree 

with the Assistant Regional Director that under the circumstances of 

this case no reasonable basis was shown in support of the alleged 

violation of Section 19(a)(5).

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's partial dismissal of your complaint, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

384

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f n e t : o r t i i c A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ms* Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney

National Federation- ofFederal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of Army

U. S. Army Training Center 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 

Case No. 62-3831(RO)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the dismissal by the Assistant Regional Director of an 

objection.to the runoff election in the subject case'held on

February 7, 1974.

Your objection alleges that a flyer was circulated by Local 

R14-32 of the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) on 

February 5, 1974, the contents of which warrant the setting aside of 

the runoff election. However, no evidence was submitted by you that 

the flyer was in fact distributed on this date, nor did you attempt to 

refute the NAGE's rebuttal to your objection to the effect that the 

flyer in question was not used in the runoff election campaign. 

Therefore, I find that the Assistant Regional Director was correct in 

disoissing your objection for failure to meet your burden of proof 

pursuant to Section 202.20(b) of the Regulations of the Assistant 

Secretary.

Under these circumstances, I find it unnecessary to consider 

the additional matters raised in your.request for review as the 

arguments relating to them are premised upon the unsupported allegation 

that the flyer was used during the runoff election campaign.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the objection involved 

herein, is denied.

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

JUN 1 ;

7974

385

363
7 / s / r f

Ms. Bertha Carpenter 

Chief Steward

American Federation of Government 

\Ez:ployees, AFL-CIO, Local 2677 

National Council of OEO-Locals 

1200 19th Street, N, W.

Washington, D, C, 20506

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-5216(AP)

Dear Ms. Carpenter:

I have considered carefully your request for reviex* seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report^ and Findings on 

Grievability or Arbitrability in the above-named case wherein he 

found that the issues raised in the grievance were not arbitrable 

under, the terms of the negotiated agreement and the provisions of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In your request for review, you assert, in pertinent part, 

that whether Section 6 of the amendments to the agreement has been 

complied with is an M, * , arbitrable question of,fact and contract 

interpretation,"

In agreement with your contention, I find that the subject 

grievance regarding whether or not the Office of Economic Opportunity 

(Agency) has complied with Section 6 of the amendments to the agreement 

is a matter subject to the negotiated grievance and arbitration 

procedures. Thus, you concede that the grievance does not involve 

the filling of vacancies' in the management of the Agency, a subject 

which would fall under the reserved powers of management under Section 

12(b) of the Order. Rather, in my judgment, it involves a dispute as 

to the proper and intended interpretation and application of certain 

provisions of the agreement. Therefore, I find that the grievance should 

be resolved in accordance with the negotiated grievance-arbitration 

procedure.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

o'-

— 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review is granted and the Assistant 

Regional Director's finding to the contrary is hereby set aside.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

364
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O r n c L o r t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20210

7 / s / r f

387

Re: Headquarters, U. S. Air Force

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma 

Case No. 63-4765(CA)

Dear Mr. Tull:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

corr.plaint filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, 

Local 916, AFL-CIO, alleging violation of Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

It is your position that Section 10(e) of Executive Order 

11491, as amended, was violated when a decision was made at a management meeting, in which the grievant and his representatives were 

excluded, to resolve the grievance in question. You allege that this 

resolution was intended to show the grievant that his problems could 

be solved without your assistance. I disagree with your position. In 

this connection, the Assistant Secretary found a violation under 

somewhat similar circumstances in Veterans Administration Hospital> 

Charleston, South Carolina, A/SLMR No. 87. However, unlike the 

situation in the instant case, the labor organization in the cited 

case sought to continue processing the grievance within the negotiated 

grievance procedure, and was refused. In the case at hand, there is 

no evidence that you sought to process the grievance further under the 

negotiated procedure prior to the filing of the unfair labor practice 

charge* As there was no evidence that the Activity's resolution of 

the grievance was intended to bypass the exclusive representative or 

any provisions of the negotiated grievance procedure, I conclude that 

the complaint was properly dismissed.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Mr. Kermitt I. Tull 

National Vice President 

AFGE Ninth District 

Suite E

3214 Tinker Diagonal 

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

Paul J, Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

OrFTCS r»p.TfIT- Ass’ s t -v n t S sc 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 202

John J. D'Angelo, Esq.

Bank and .Minehart 

Suite 735 Philadelphia Savings 

Fund Building 

Twelve South Twelfth Street 

Philadelphia, Pa. 19107

^ Re: Air Engineering Center

Naval Air Support Activity 

Philadelphia, Pa.

Case No. 20-4311

Dear Mr. D'Angelo:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint in the above named case alleging violations of Section 

19(a)(1) and (4) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. As 

found by the Assistant Regional Directorj the 19(a)(4) allegation 

vith respect to discrimination during an Activity reduction in 

force and all alleged incidents occurring after October 10, 1973, 

were not included in the pre-complaint charge filed with the Activity 

on October 10, 1973. Allegations newly raised in a complaint are 

untimely under Section 203.2(a)(1) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations and will not be considered-. Moreover, there was no 

evidence that Mr. Chickillo was disciplined or discriminated against 

for filing a complaint or testifying under the Order. With respect 

to the 19(a)(1) allegation concerning Mr. Chickillo*s non-selection 

for the positions of Building and Grounds Manager, Supervisory 

Engineering Technician and Maintenance Superintendent I find no 

evidence to establish that the Activity's non-selection of 

Hr. Chickillo for these positions constituted interference with his 

rights assured under the Order or was based on union membership or 

union activity considerations. Further, it appears that the charge 

regarding non-selection for the Maintenance Superintendent position 

was filed untimely more than six months after the occurrence of the 

alleged unfair labor practice.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

LABOR

a f .t a r y A

388

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f i n i ; A s s i s t a n t S e c m - t a r v 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Robert S. Kraft

Haas & Najarian 'IflQ

A t t o r n e y s at Law

451'' Jackson Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Re: American Federation of Government 

Employees, Local 1157, AFL-CIO 

Case No. 70-4178(CO)

Dear Mr. Kraft:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

corplaint in the above named case alleging a violation of Section 

19(b)(1) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. In this regard, 

the statement in the complaint admitting that the Complainant rejected 

the AFGE's offer of representation on December 23, 1972, was more than 

the rejection of an individual representative as you contend in your 

request for review. Instead, under the circumstances, it was viewed 

as a total rejection of the AFGE's offer of representation. In my 

viev, the Complainant's rejection of representation on December 23,

1972, relieved the Respondent of any obligation under Section 10(e) 

of Executive Order 11491, as amended, to represent the Complainant 

at the subsequent hearing.

With regard to your allegation that the Respondent's offer of 

limited representation and testimony by its officers against the 

Complainant at the adverse action hearing also was in violation of 

the Order, I refer you to my decision in United States Department of 

the Navy, Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky, A/SLMR No. 400 

at footnote 5, in which I stated regarding the obligations of a labor 

organization under Section 10(e) to represent unit employees that 

"within the context of this obligation clearly an exclusive representative retains discretion to make decisions as to the merits of a 

particular unit employee's case and to represent the employee

- 2 -

accordingly," Thus, the Respondent had the right to assess the. merits 

of the case and to offer its representation accordingly so long as its 

decision was not discriminatory and was reached without regard to labor 

organization membership.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J, Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

366
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 8, 1974

Mr. Joseph Girlando 

National Representative 

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3306 

300 Main Street 

Orange, New Jersey 07050

Re: Veterans Administration Center 

Bath, New York 

Case No. 35-3125 (RO)

Dear Mr. Girlando:

I have considered carefully your request for review in the 

instant case seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s 

dismissal of the subject petition based on untimeliness and on a 

deficient showing of interest.

In my view, the controlling date in computing the "open" 

period for the filing of a petition is the terminal date of an 

agreement. See Assistant Secretary's Report No. 38. In the 

instant case, the effective date of the agreement was April 13,

1972, and its termination date was two (2) years from its effective 

date which would be April 12, 1974. Thus, the open period for 

filing a petition in the instant case would have been 60-90 days 

prior to April 12, 1974, or during the period January 12, 1974 - 

February 11, 1974. As your petition was filed on February 11,

1974, it was viewed as timely. Therefore, I am remanding the 

instant case to the Assistant Regional Director for reinstatement 

of the petition and for further processing as noted below.

I have been advised administratively, with regard to the 

dismissal in part based on a showing of interest deficiency, that, 

subsequent to the dismissal, the Activity submitted a revised list 

of eligible employees which excluded certain employees classified 

as "temporary employees," I am directing him to cause a further 

investigation to be made to determine the eligibility of employees 

classified as "temporary employees."

I am further directing the Assistant Regional Director to 

cause an investigation to be made concerning allegations raised

-2-

by the incumbent that: (1 ) the showing of interest was obtained 

in violation of Section 20 of the Executive Order; (2) the petition 

was "tainted" because the President of AFGE Local 3306 is a supervisor; and (3) the petition is "tainted" because the President of 

Local 3306 signed the petition and participated in solicitation of 

the showing of interest.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

367
7 - 4 6 - 7 /

L'.S- Di-i'ARTMENT OF LABOR

O r f i c e o i- t u p . A s s i s t a n t a r v

W ASHINGTON

Ur* Ja.-«es L, Neustadt 

Assistant General Counsel 

American Federation of 

Government Employees 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N* W*

Washington, D. C* 20005

Re: Department of Army

Baltimore District Corps of 

Engineers 

Baltimore, Maryland 

Case Mo. 22-5152(CA)

Dear Mr, Neustadt:

• v

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint in the above-named case alleging violation of Section 19(a)

(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, 1 find 

that further proceedings are unwarranted in that a reasonable 

basis for the complaint was not established. Thus, in my view, 

the incident complained of did not constitute a "formal discussion" 

concerning grievances, personnel policies and practices, or other 

matters affecting general working conditions of employees in the 

unit within the meaning of Section 10(e) of the Order which would 

entitle the Complainant to be represented at the discussion in 

question. See Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Texas 

Air National Guard, A/SLS3 No* 336, FL5C No* 74A-11.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint, is 

denied*

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr*

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Michael J. Riselli 

General Counsel 

National Association of 

Government Employees 

1341 G Street, N. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20005

Dear Mr. Riselli:

July 26, 1974

392

Re: Department of the Army

Rock Island Arsenal Headquarters 

U. S. Army Armament Command 

Rock Island, Illinois 

Case No. 50-11059 (RO)

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Report and Findings on Objection of the Assistant 

Regional Director.

In your objection, you state that a compaign flyer was distributed by the NFFE during the morning hours of the day of the 

election, contrary to the ground rules for the election; that the 

place of distribution was in close proximity to the election polls; 

and that "numerous copies" of the flyer "were observed in, about, and 

outside of the cafeteria as early as 7 a.m. and throughout the day in 

open violation of electioneering ground rules." As you noted, the 

subject matter, of the flyer, a newspaper column by Jack Anderson, has 

been involved previously in a ruling of the Assistant Secretary in 

Army and Air Force Exchange Region Warehouse, Fort Bragg, North 

Carolina, Case No. 40-4365 (copy attached). In that case, the 

editorial comment added by the party which disseminated the Anderson 

column was such as to affix the imprimatur of truth to unsupported 

allegations contained in the article, thereby characterizing those 

allegations as factual information. Thus, the radio announcements 

referred to the column and added such comments as, "Now that you know 

the truth . . . vote for honesty and integrity . . . vote AFGE-AFL-CIO." 

As distinguished from that case, the editorial comment contained on 

the flyer with the Anderson article in the instant case takes issue 

with statistics contained in the item regarding relative membership 

strength of the NAGE and the NFFE. The comment is introduced with 

the phrase "You form your own opinion after reading the below", 

and continues,

368
-2-

"NAGE presumably told the Washington Merry-Go-Round, 

for its Washington Post article of October 31, 1972, 

that 'Lyons heads . . . the 100,000-strong National 

Association of Government Employees . . . . ’

However, the U. S. Civil Service Commission's 

records published as of November 1972 show that 

NAGE represented only 83,067 Federal employees."

Further comment in the flyer all goes to the question of membership 

strength. In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that the thrust of the editorial comment contained in the flyer was the 

relative membership strength of the NFFE and the NAGE, brought out by 

references to specific membership figures contained in an article which 

was reproduced in its entirety. Although the article did refer to 

alleged Mafia connections of an officer of the NAGE, it is clear that 

there was no editorial comment upon the truth-or falsity of such 

allegation and no attempt to affix the imprimatur of truth to the Mafialink assertions of the article. Moreover, the investigation disclosed 

no evidence that the flyer was distributed by the NFFE or that the 

distribution was widespread. At most, four or five copies were found 

three floors away from the nearest of eight widely separated polling ' 

places. Thus, as concluded by the Assistant Regional Director, I 

find that the burden of proof to support the objection was not met by 

the NAGE.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Objection, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 26, 1974

Mr. William J. Barnes 

Business Representative 

District Lodge 74

International Association of Machinists 393

and Aerospace Workers 

800 Elkin Street 

Norfolk, Virginia 23523

Re: Department of Navy

Naval Air Rework Facility 

Norfolk, Virginia 

Case No. 22-5272(AP)

Dear Mr. Barnes:

X have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Grievability or Arbitrability.

In your request for review, you state that the grievance filed 

by the Naval Air Rework Facility (Activity) questioned the unauthorized 

presence of Mr. C. E. Bozoti, a non-unit employee, in the office 

provided by the Activity for the exclusive use of the Chairman of the 

IAM Shop Committee under the terms of Article VI, Section 3 of the 

negotiated agreement between the Activity and the IAM. You assert 

that the grievance does not, however, "charge the Union with conducting 

'unauthorized business' concerning the use of the Union office space , 

an issue raised by the Activity's Application.

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the conclusion 

of the Assistant Regional Director that the unresolved issues herein 

involve the interpretation and application of the negotiated agreement 

and, thus, are arbitrable pursuant to the terms of that agreement.

Thus, the subject grievance raises questions regarding the use of the 

office space provided by the Activity pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 

of the negotiated agreement and the intent of the parties as to that 

section of the agreement, which should be resolved in accordance with 

the negotiated grievance-arbitration procedure.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking to set aside the 

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievability or 

Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

369“----

(
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

July 26, 1974

Mr. N. E. Rizzo

Personnel Officer 394

NWS Eastern Region Headquarters

585 Stewart Avenue

Garden City, New York 11530

Re: National Weather Service

U. S. Department of Commerce

Caribou, Maine

Case No. 31-7565(AP)

Dear Mr. Rizzo:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Arbitrability in the above named case.

In your request for review, you allege that the Assistant 

Regional Director did not address himself to the pertinent issues of 

the case which are: (1) the disciplining of supervisor Godbois by 

suggesting that he receive a five day suspension; and (2) the suggestion that the grievant be granted eight hours compensatory time off or 

administrative leave for the next medical appointment of his wife.

You contend that your Agency has taken appropriate action in resolving 

the issue of disciplinary action but complain that the Assistant Regional 

Director has permitted the National Association of Government Employees 

(NAGE) to introduce the further question of the nature of the discipline, 

which you allege is not the issue to be decided. You contend that the 

direct issues to be resolved by the Assistant Regional Director are 

whether disciplinary action was taken against the supervisor, and 

whether the request for compensatory or administrative time is to be 

granted the aggrieved employee. You also allege that the Assistant 

Regional Director is ignoring the application of Article IV, Section 1 

of the multi-unit agreement between National Weather Service and the 

NAGE and the supplemental agreement, as the Assistant Regional Director 

believes arbitration should be invoked even though such resolutions 

sought are contrary to law and are not resolvable by an arbitrator.

- 2 -

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the conclusion of 

the Assistant Regional Director that the unresolved issues herein involve 

the interpretation and application of a negotiated agreement and, thus, 

are arbitrable pursuant to the terms of that agreement. Contrary to 

your contention that the issues involved herein require resolutions 

that are contrary to law and, thus, are not resolvable by an arbitrator,

I find that the immediate issue is the right of the NAGE to take the 

instant grievance to arbitration. Under the terms of the negotiated 

agreement, either party unilaterally may invoke arbitration if the 

matter in dispute is still unresolved. Further, under the unambiguous 

language of the agreement, a party may file exceptions to an arbitrator's 

award with the Federal Labor Relations Council. This is confirmed by 

Article XI, Section 5 of your negotiated agreement. On the basis of 

the above, I find, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, 

that Article X, Section 2, and Article XI, Section 1 of the negotiated 

agreement clearly require the processing of a grievance, such as the 

grievance involved herein, to arbitration at the request of either the 

Activity or the labor organization, and that the issue raised by the 

NAGE, i.e. - that it has a right to know the action taken because the 

remedy it sought was arguably within the authority of the Director 

of the Agency pursuant to Article X, Section 1 of the agreement - may 

be considered by an arbitrator pursuant to the parties' negotiated 

agreement.

Accordingly, and as there is no evidence to support your 

contention that the Assistant Regional Director has not addressed 

himself to the pertinent issues of the case, and ignored the application 

of the appropriate sections of the agreement and supplemental agreement 

between the parties, your request for review, seeking the setting aside 

of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Arbitrability, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

370
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 22, 1974

Richard V. Falcon, Esq.

500 West Baltimore Street 

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Re: Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare 

Social Security Administration 

Baltimore, Maryland 

Case No. 22-5271(CA)

Dear Mr. Falcon:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

a complaint in the subject case filed by Lawrence R. Ambush, an 

individual, alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the 

Executive Order.

The Acting Assistant Regional Director found that the charge 

and complaint filed by the Complainant on December 28, 1973, and 

March 28, 1974, respectively, were untimely basing his conclusion 

on the fact that May 25, 1973, the date of notification of separation of the Complainant, was the date on which the alleged unfair 

labor practice occurred. Contrary to the Acting Assistant Regional 

Director, I find that the controlling dates in this regard are 

June 28, 1973, the final notification, and June 30, 1973, the 

actual date of termination of the Complainant's employment. Thus, 

contrary to the Acting Assistant Regional Director, I conclude 

that both the charge and the complaint were timely under Section 

203.2(a)(2) and (b)(3) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

The Acting Assistant Regional Director further found that 

the subject complaint did not contain a clear and concise statement 

of facts to constitute the alleged unfair labor practices, and that 

no documents were submitted with the complaint from which such 

information could be extracted. Additionally, he found that the 

evidence did not sustain the allegations that the Complainant's 

separation was improper under the Executive Order. Contrary to the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director, I find that under the circumstances the complaint herein and its attachments with the supplemental facts and exhibits submitted by the Complainant, were 

sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of 

the dismissal of the complaint is granted and the Assistant Regional

-2-

Director is directed to reinstate the complaint and to issue 

notice of hearing, absent settlement.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

371
V 7 /

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t i i k A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON D.C. 20210

Mr* N, E. Rizzo 

Personnel Officer

National Weather Service 396

Eastern Region

585 Stewart Avenue

Garden City, New York 11530

Re: National Weather Service 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

Case No. 21-3997(AP)

Dear. Mr, Rizzo: ■

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Grievability or Arbitrability in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you assert that in accordance 

with the negotiated agreement and Federal Personnel Manual requirements the Activity is precluded from considering the remedy sought, 

that is, the payment of holiday premium pay for days not actually 

worked by an employee due to a possible violation of scheduling 

provisions as set forth in the negotiated agreement. You state also 

that the original scheduling format has been resumed in partial 

settlement of the grievance herein.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional- Director, I find 

that the subject grievance may be considered by an arbitrator pursuant 

to the terms of the parties' negotiated agreement.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking the setting 

aside of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Grievability or Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

*/» v/ 7 /

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c b o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

•\

Mr, John Jerome Connerton

Labor Relations Advisor

Labor Disputes and Appeals Section

Labor & Employee Relations Division _ Q Q O

Office of Civilian Manpower Management ^

Department of the Navy 

Washington, D, C, 20390

Re: Department of Navy

National Naval Medical Center 

Bethesda, Md,

Case No. 22-5251(AP)

Dear Mr, Connerton:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Grievability or Arbitrability in the above named case.

The essence of your position is that Article XIII, Section 1, 

of the negotiated agreement, does not merely set forth examples of 

actions which are covered by this Article but refers specifically 

to adverse actions and those matters which constitute adverse actions. 

Further, you contend that termination of a probationary employee 

as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM), Chapter 315 is not 

an adverse action. Consequently, as termination of a probationary 

employee is allegedly not an adverse action, your position is that it 

is not covered by Article XIII, Section 1 of the negotiated agreement* 

Moreover, you contend that a probationary employee has no protection 

or appeals rights unless the parties specifically provided for such 

in the negotiated agreement and that the parties have not so provided 

in the negotiated agreement. You further contend that there is nothing 

in either the bargaining history or past practice providing for such 

rights and protections.

Under the particular circumstances, I find that the unresolved 

issues herein involve the interpretation and application of the 

negotiated agreement and are arbitrable pursuant to the terms of the 

agreement. In this regard, particularly noted were the parties 

opposing positions with respect to whether Article XIII, Section 1 

of the negotiated agreement applies to probationary employees.

372
- 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking to set aside 

the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievabillty 

or Arbitrability, is denied#

Sincerely,

Paul J.. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

N

Mr. Robert Weimer, President 

American Federation of Government Employees,

Local Union 27601, AFL-CIO,

P.O. Box 112*91, Station E.

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112

Re: Transportation - FAA, Airways 

Facilities Sector 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Case No. 63-4904(CA)

Dear Mr. Weimer:

I have considered carefully your request for review in which 

you seek reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

your complaint in the above-named case, alleging violations of Section 

19(a)(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

further proceedings on your complaint are unwarranted. Thus, for the 

reasons cited by the Assistant Regional Director, I find that a reasonable 

basis for the complaint has not been established in that the evidence 

does not reveal that the Activity herein interfered with any rights 

assured by the Executive Order. Further, I am in agreement with the 

Assistant Regional Director that your pre-complaint charge alleging that 

the Activity's filing of a CU petition was a violation of Section 19(a) 

of the Order was untimely and therefore could not be considered. Moreover, I find that there was insufficient evidence presented to indicate 

that the Activity's filing of the petition was in bad faith or was 

motivated by a desire to evade negotiating with the AFGE.

- Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint., is denied.

Sincerely, %

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF I

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e

WASHINGTON, 11C. 20210

if W \

\ Si ./

LABOR

398

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 22, 1974

Ms. Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal 

Employees, Ind.

1737 "H" Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

Re: Treasury Disbursing Center 

Austin, Texas 

Case No. 63-4816(CA)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional-Director’s dismissal of the 

complaint in the above-named case filed by NFFE Local 1745 alleging 

violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 11491, 

as amended.

In Agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. However, 

contrary to the Assistant Regional Director, I find that Section 

10(e) of the Order sets forth only ah exclusive representative's 

right to be represented at "formal" discussions involving employees 

in the unit. See in this regard: U. S. Department of the Army, 

Transportation Motor Pool, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 278; 

U. S. Army Headquarters, U. S. Army Training Center, Infantry,

Fort Jackson Laundry Facility, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, A/SLMR 

No. 242. In the instant case, the grievant did not seek to be 

represented by the NFFE Local 1829, the exclusive representative at 

the Activity, but rather sought to have as her representative an 

officer of the NFFE Local 1745 which did not have exclusive 

recognition at the Activity. Thus, because the Complainant, NFFE 

Local 1745, is not the exclusive representative at the Activity, 

it has no Section 10(e) rights under the Order.

With regard to your contention that "Section 7(d)(1) of the 

Executive Order protects an employee’s option to choose his own 

representative in an agency grievance procedure regardless of 

exclusive recognition," I have held in Fort Wainwright, cited above, 

that "Section 7(d)(1) does not establish any rights for employees, 

organizations or associations enforceable under Section 19 of 

Executive Order 11491, as amended. Rather, I view 7(d)(1) as

-2-

delineating those instances in which employees may choose a 

representative other than their exclusive representative in 

certain grievance or appellate actions, and those instances 

in which an agency may consult and/or deal with certain 

organizations or associations not qualified as labor organizations without violating Section 19 of the Order".

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

374
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 22, 1974

Mr. H. M. Bossier

Business Representative 400

AFGE Local No. 40 

P. 0. Box 155

Falls City, Washington 98024

Re: U. S. Coast Guard Base 

Seattle, Washington 

Case No. 71-2872

Dear Mr. Bossier:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

the setting aside of the Assistant Regional Director's approval of 

the Settlement Agreement in the above-named case.

You state that your only objection to becoming a party to the 

Settlement Agreement is the lack of a requirement for disciplinary 

action against a supervisor whose actions were the basis for the 

instant unfair labor practice complaint. Specifically, you 

"recommend his forced retirement."

Under all of the circumstances, I conclude that the Assistant 

Regional Director's approval of the Settlement Agreement was 

appropriate. Although you assert that the removal of this employee 

as a supervisor "would be consistent with, and indeed required 

under GENERAL PROVISIONS J_ sicj Section 1 of Executive Order 11491," 

there is no authority granted under the Executive Order for a remedy 

which would direct the forced retirement or discharge of an employee 

for participation in the commission of an unfair labor practice.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking the setting aside 

of the Assistant Regional Director's approval of the Settlement 

Agreement in this matter, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

August 22, 1974

Mr. Kermitt I. Tull 

National Vice President

AFGE Ninth District 4 0 i

Suite E

3214 Tinker Diagonal 

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

Re: Department of the Air Force

Headquarters, Oklahoma City Air 

Materiel Area 

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma 

Case No. 63-4831(AC)

Dear Mr. Tull:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

petition for amendment of recognition in the above named case.

I find, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, that 

the subject petition for amendment of recognition is not the proper, 

vehicle to consolidate three separate units. Thus, I agree with the 

Assistant Regional Director that a petition for exclusive recognition 

(an RO petition) is the appropriate vehicle to use in such circumstances 

so that the employees involved will be provided the opportunity to express their desires regarding their inclusion in a broadened unit. In 

this connection, I refer you to the decision of the Assistant Secretary 

in Headquarters, U. S. Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Missouri, 

A/SLMR No. 160, in which the circumstances under which a petition such 

as that filed in the instant case could properly be filed were clearly 

defined.

It should be noted that my decision herein does not preclude the 

parties from engaging in joint negotiations covering any combination of 

units at any level of the agency where the parties are in agreement that 

such an arrangement would provide for more meaningful negotiations. This 

approach has been suggested in Section E.3. of the Study-Committee's Report and Recommendations on Labor-Management Relations in the Federal 

Service (August 1969) which preceded the issuance of Executive Order 11491.

Accordingly, under the curcumstances set forth above, your request 

that the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal action be reversed is 

denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

375
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

August 22, 1974

Mr. Michael J. Riselli 

General Counsel

National Association of Government 4 0 ?

Employees 

1341 G Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Department of the Army, Headquarters 

U. S. Army Training Center Engineer 

and Fort Leonard Wood 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 

Case No. 62-3655(RO)

Dear Mr. Riselli:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal 

of the dismissal by the Assistant Regional Director of objections to the 

election held in the instant case.

In your request for review, you take exception on three grounds to 

the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections. You 

assert that a certain National Federation of Federal Employees' (NFFE) 

flyer was distributed through the Activity's official mail system; that 

the NFFE flyer contained deliberate misrepresentations which affected the 

results of the election; and that, because of the timing of the NFFE flyer, 

the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) had no opportunity 

for rebuttal.

Under the circumstances, I find that there is insufficient evidence 

to indicate that the NFFE flyer in question was distributed, as alleged, 

through the Activity's official base-wide mail system.

With reference to the second objection, regarding the alleged 

untruthful content of the flyer, the text which is questioned reads in 

pertinent part as follows:

"Locally, there are two unfair labor practice charges pending 

in the Department of Labor against NAGE for actions taken 

at this installation.

"One - d charge brought against them by some of their own 

people in their present unit, and

"The other - for violations of the Executive Order that 

governs the conduct of federal employee unions.'"

- 2 -

As noted by the Assistant Regional Director in his Report and Findings on 

Objections, the first "charge" referred to was an unfair labor practice 

complaint (Case No. 62-3834(CO)) filed by two unit employees in a unit 

represented by the NAGE and which, at the time of the instant election, 

was under investigation by the St. Louis Area Administrator. In your 

request for review, you assert that a reasonable voter would read the flyer’s 

description of the first "charge" to mean that some NAGE members filed 

charges against their own union. I do not agree that such an inference 

necessarily flows from the language used in the flyer; rather, I find that 

"their own people in their present unit" also may reasonably be inferred 

to mean their own present unit people. With respect to the second referenced 

"charge," I agree with the Assistant Regional Director that the discrepancy 

in the forum of the appeal in Case No. 63-3712(CO) (Federal Labor Relations 

Council as opposed to the Department of Labor) is not a misrepresentation 

or deception which reasonably could have tended to interfere with the free 

choice of the employees voting in the election.

Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the NFFE flyer involved was 

untruthful in certain respects, you admit in your request for review that 

was not until Tuesday, January 15, 1974. In my view, the intervening 

period of four days afforded the NAGE adequate time to prepare and disseminate a response to the NFFE flyer correcting any alleged misrepresentations 

contained therein.

Accordingly, under all of the circumstances, your request for review, 

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the 

objections involved herein, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

376
‘Z/yT-J-?'-/'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e oh t h f : A ss is t a n t S k c r k t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2G.U0

Mr. George Fredericksen 

1714 Kingsway Road

Norfolk, Virginia 23518

Re: U. S. Navy

Naval Air Station 

Fifth Naval District 

Norfolk, Virginia 

Case No. 22-5256<CA)

Dear Mr• Fredericksen:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your 

complaint in the above named case alleging violation o£ Section 

19(a)(1) and (4) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

It is found that the request for review is procedurally 

defective in that, contrary to the requirement of Section 202.6(d) 

of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary, and the Assistant 

Regional Director's instructions in his letter dismissing your 

complaint, a copy of the request for review was not served on the 

Assistant Regional Director,

Accordingly, the merits of the case have not been considered 

and your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant 

Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Mr, Kenneth Bull 

National Representative

American Federation of Government AC)A

Employees, AFL-CIO * *

5001 South Washington 

Englewood, Colorado S0110

Re: Ue S. Air Force

Air Force Finance and Accounting 

Center 

Denver, Colorado 

Case No. 61-2315(CA)

Dear Mr. Bull:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint in the above named case alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all the circumstances, 1 conclude, in agreement with 

the Assistant Regional Director and essentially for the reasons 

advanced by him in his decision, that a reasonable basis for the 

complaint has not been established. I find that the Activity 

demonstrated good faith in its willingness to discuss Issues with 

the Complainant following the January, 1974, meeting* In this 

regard, it is noted that you have not taken exception to.the 

Activity's account of what occurred at that meeting or to the 

Assistant Regional Director's finding that following the February 

meeting the Activity continued to demonstrate good faith in its 

willingness to discuss issues with the Complainant* Thus, I 

conclude that further proceedings in this matter would not be 

warranted.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is 

denied*

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ^

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y -r

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 \

Paul J* Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
Omci: o f 7 m : A s s i s t a n t S i ; c r i i v a r y 

W A S H iN o T O N . D.C. 2 0:10

fy-yl/ T 1

I'.S. DEPAR I’M EN T OF- LABOR

Major General Frank A. Bailey 

13ase Detachment Commander 

Arkansas Air National Guard 

189 Tac Recon GP (RTU)

Post Office Box 1211 

Little Rock Air Force Base 

Jacksonville, Arkansas 72076

Re: National Guard Bureau

Arkansas Air National Guard 

189 Tac Recon GP (RTU) 

Jacksonville, Arkansas 

Case No. 64-2290(Arbit)

Bear General Bailey:

I have considered carafully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings 

on Arbitrability.

In your request for review you contend that the parties 

clearly defined their intent that the effective date of the 

negotiated agreement was to be the date that the agreement was 

approved by the Chief, National Guard Bureau and certain orally 

agreed conditions had been met. As the agreed conditions were 

not fulfilled until September 7, 1973, you argue that the agreement 

was not in full force until that date. In addition, you contend 

that, in view of Article XXVIII of the agreement, the earliest the 

agreement could have been in effect would have been August 6, 1973.

You also disagree with the Assistant Regional Director's statement 

that "oral agreements cannot cater a written contract,” contending 

that, "rules and opinions should not be permitted which would prevent 

the parties from entering into an oral agreement as a result of 

consulting, conferring and discussing in good faith where a meeting 

of the minds occur." Finally, you contend for the first time in 

your request for review that the position of Administrative Technician 

C-S-8 Is a supervisory Job outside of the exclusive unit and, thus, 

the procedures contained in Article XIX of the negotiated agreement 

■sera not applicable to the selection ojt a candidate for this position.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find, 

contrnry to the Assistant Regional Director, that the effective 

date of the negotiated agreement herein was August 6, 1973, and

- 2 -

not July 6, 1973. In this connection, it was noted that the 

Article XXVIII of the agreement provided that the agreement would 

not be effective until approval by the Chief, National Guard 

Bureau. The agreement was, in fact, approved by the Chief,

National Guard Bureau on August 6, 1373, and thus, becaae effective 

on that date. Moreover, it was concluded that because the term 

of the negotiated agreement herein was clear and unambiguous, it 

could not be altered on the basis of certain oral agreements 

allegedly reached after its effective date.

With respect to the arbitrability of the instant grievance,

I agree with tho conclusion of the Assistant Regional Director that 

the unresolved issues herein involve the interpretation and application of the negotiated agreement and are arbitrable pursuant to 

the terms of the agreement. In this regard, particularly noted 

were the parties' opposing positions with respect to whether the 

selection of the employee for the position vacancy of Administrative 

Technician, which occurred after the effective date of the negotiated 

agreement, was covered by Article XIX of the agreement.

The assertion presented for the first time in your request 

for review that the position of Administrative Technician is a 

supervisory position outside of the exclusive unit cannot be considered. It is established policy that evidence or information 

presented for the first time in a request for review will not be 

considered by the Assistant Secretary. See, in this regard,

Assistant Secretary's Report Number 46 (copy enclosed).

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking to set aside 

the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Arbitrabi1 itv 

is denied. ---------------- ----------------

Sincerely,

Paul Fa33or, Jr. 

A3 3istant Secretary of Labor

378
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Kermitt I. Tull 

National Vice President

AFGE 9th District jinc

Suite E 4Uj?

3214 Tinker Diagonal 

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

Re: U. S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Ouachita National Forest 

Hot Springs, Arkansas 

Case No. 64-2279(RO)

Dear Ur. Tull:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Report and Findings on Objection to Conduct of 

Elections of the Assistant Regional Director, which found your 

objection to be without merit.

In your objection, you state that William B. Roach, an 

engineering technician, is a supervisorj that he is acting and 

serving as temporary 'President of NFFE Local 796, that he was 

active as a NFFE President before and during the subject election, 

and that he campaigned during the campaign period prior to the 

subject election. You state further that Roach took annual leave 

in order to campaign and that he was reimbursed for his expenses 

by NFFE. Your objection is that the outcome of the election was 

affected because of the campaigning by this alleged supervisor.

You have submitted organizational charts and an official 

description of Roach's job which might indicate that he is a 

supervisor of certain employees. As has been previously h<H.d, 

however, actual duties performed, rather than official job titles 

or descriptions alone, will determine the status of an employee. 

See, e.g., II. S. Dcpartmont of tho Air Forco. Holloman Air Force 

Base, Alamogorda, New Moxico, A/SLMR No. 235. All the other 

evidence submitted indicates that, in fact, Roach is not a supervisor. Thus, performance evaluations for the three employees in 

question were signed by a supervisor who submitted a statement

that ho never oonsults Roach in evaluating these employees. Roach 

and Roach's supervisor also state that Roach does not supervise 

tho employees. All of the employees in question state that to their 

knowledge Roach is not their supervisor. Aside from giving monthly 

written maintenance requirements to the crew, Roach is available 

for technical assistance in performing specific Jobs but his contacts 

with tho crew aro casual and Infrequent. Thus, according to a 

statement by one of the three employees, during tho last one-month 

assignment period. Roach had no contact with tho crow after giving 

them their Initial written instructions (which instructions are 

always approved by Roach's supervisor before they are passed 

to the crew).

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I conclude 

that under all of the circumstances the evidence adduced establishes 

that Roach is no't a supervisor within the meaning of the Executive 

Order.

Accordingly, and noting particularly that Roach appeared on 

the voter eligibility list without objection by the Intervenor, 

and also that he was permitted to vote without challenge your 

request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional 

Director’s Report and Findings on Objection to Conduot of Elections, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
2/30/ 7 <-f

U.S.. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W a s h i n g t o n , d . c . 20210

Mr. Herbert Cohn 

President, Local 476

National Federation of A n n

Federal Employees *

P. 0. Box 204

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command 

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3329(CA)

Dear Mr. Cahn:

In accordance with my letter of July 7, 1974, in which I 

vacated ray ruling of March 4, 1974, denying the request for review 

in the subject case on the basis of timeliness, I have now 

considered carefully the merits of your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

19(a)(1) and (2) complaint herein.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted inasmuch as 

a reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established.

Thus, under the circumstances, I find that Mr. Greenman's statement 

to Mr. Iannacone that he had been seen in the "Should Cost" file 

did not demonstrate imlon animus or constitute evidence of discriminatory motivation or the disparate treatment necessary to 

provide a reasonable basis for the Section 19(a)(1) and (2) 

allegations in the instant case. Also, in agreement with the 

Assistant Regional Director, I find that as the agency grievance 

procedure under which the grievance herein w a3 processed was not 

the result of any rights accorded individual employees or labor 

organizations under Executive Order 11491, as amended, the Agency's 

failure to follow its grievance procedure or its deviation from such 

procedure, including an attempt to limit the number of representatives 

representing a grievant, does not, standing alone, interfere with 

rights protected under the Order. Cf. Office of Economic Opportunity, 

Region V, Chicago, Illinois. A/SLMR No. 334, FLRC No. 74A-3. Furthef, 

notin" that the Complainant labor organization in this matter does 

not hold exclusive recognition for any employees in the unit involved, 

I iijjreti with the Assistant Regional Director's finding that Section 

10(c) of the Order is not applicable in the instant case.

- 2 -

Your request for review refers to other conduct, not set 

forth in your report of Investigation submitted to the Assistant 

Regional Director, which you allege to be violative of the Order. 

It is established policy that the Assistant Secretary will not 

consider such evidence furnished for the first time in a request 

for review. See, in this regard, Report on a Ruling of the 

Assistant Secretary, Report Number 46.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

380
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

4pdf7<-j

Mr. David ». Smith 

Business Agent

Service Employees International /IflQ

Union, Local 626, AFL-CIO 

8004 Mandarin Drive 

Orlando, Florida 32809

Be: U. S, Air Force, Billeting Fund 

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 

Case No. 42-2509(80)

Dear Mr. Smith:

I have considered carefully your request for review of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the BO petition filed 

in the above-named case by the Service Employees International 

Union, Local 626, AFL-CIO.

Under the circumstances herein, I find that there are 

questions of fact and policy which can be resolved best on the 

basis of record testimony. Therefore, I am remanding the subject 

case to the Assistant Regional Director for reinstatement of the 

petition and issuance of a notice of hearing.

In order that an adequate record be made at the hearing, 

evidence should be adduced concerning, but not limited to, the 

following "Utters:

1. What categories of employees are specifically included 

i n a n d sought to be excluded from the claimed unit?

2. What is the extent of exclusive representation by labor 

organizations of the non-appropriated fund (NAF) employees of 

Patrick Air Force Base?

3. Are there any agreement bars to an election in the 

petitioned for unit or for any NAF employees at the Base?

4. What i s t h e d e g r e e of i n t e r c h a n g e a n d t r a n s f e r b e t w e e n 

the e m p lo y e e c l a s 3 l f l c a t i o n ( s ) i n t h e u n i t s o u g h t a n d t h e o t h e r

' NA F employee classifications at the Base?

5. What are the work locations a n d job contacts between 

employees within the petitioned for unit and between the employees 

of the claimed unit and any employees with Identical job 

classifications performing similar functions employed by the 

remaining NAFs at the Base?

6 . Should intermittent employees be included in the 

petitioned for unit?

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

381
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 I

f p z / l f \

Mr. Carl Abramowitz 4 0 9

207 Hampton Avenue 

Brooklyn, New York 11235

Re: Council of Customs Locals,

ATCE, Locals 2652, 2768, and 

2899, AFL-CIO 

Case No0 30-5569(00)

Dear Mr. Abramowitz:

This is in connection with your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Directors dismissal of 

your complaint in the subject case alleging violation of Section 19(b) 

(1) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

I find that the request for review is procedurally defective 

in that it was filed untimely with the Assistant Secretary. The 

Acting Assistant Regional Director issued his decision in this matter 

on July 31, 1974, and, as you were advised therein, a request for 

review of that decision must have been received by the Assistant 

Secretary no later than the close of business August 13, 1974c Your 

request for review-, mailed August 13, 1974, was, in fact not received 

in my office until after the August 13, 1974, due date and, therefore, 

it was viewed as having been filed untimely.

Under these circumstances, the merits of the subject case 

have not been considered and your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's decision dismissing the 

complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W a s h i n g t o n d .c . 20210

g 'A /V vMs. Geraldine Dobbs 

President

American Federation of Government 

Employees, local 1781 

P. O. Box 5172

China Lake, California 9355S

Re: Department of 

Naval Weapons 

China Lake, Cs

Case No. 72-4«

Dear Ms. Dobb?1:

I have carefully considered your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint in the above named case alleging violations of Section 

19(a)(2) of the Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

chat further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted inasmuch 

as the subject complaint is untimely filed. Thus, the complaint 

does not comply with the requirements of Section 203.2(b)(2) of the 

Assistant Secretary's Regulations which provides that a complaint 

must be filed within 60 days after "a written decision expressly 

designated as a final decision on the charge is served by the 

respondent on the charging party." In this regard, the Activity's 

final answer to the pre-complaint charge in the instant case was 

served on Mr. Simshauser's representative, Mr. Oscar Paulsen of 

the AFGZ, on December 28, 1973, and the instant unfair labor 

prnni-ire complaint v/as net filed until ’iarch 4, 1974, over 60 

days later. I find, therefore, that the instant complaint was 

filed nore than 60 days subsequent to the Activity's final decision 

on the pre-complaint charge and thereby failed to satisfy the 

timeliness requirements of Section 203.2(b)(2) of the Regulations.

vVith regard to the contention that the December 28, 197:;, 

response by the Activity was not the "letter of decision" proaUsed 

by the Activity at the parties' December 17, 1973 raeetin;, * I line! .

the Activity's written response of December 28, 137U, c l e a r l y 

indicated that it was the Activity’s"final answer to the charts," 

a r . d thus satisfied the requirements of the Assistant Secretary’s

410

the Navy 

Center 

ilifornia 

378

f

% J

382
- 2 -

Regulations. Thus, in my view, the evidence in support of the 

contention that the letter was not the promised "letter of decision, 

is insufficient to warrant going outside the clear language of the 

Activity's response of December 28, 1973, which fulfilled the 

requirements of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Accordingly, under all the circumstances, your request for 

review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s 

dismissal of the instant complaint alleging violations of Section 

19(a)(2) of the Order, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

V ' l j

Edward Ferenczy, Chairman A 4 4

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy A

Department of Engineering

Kings Point, New York 11024

N

Re: Department of Commerce,

U.S„ Merchant Marine Academy,

Kings Point, N ew York

Case No. 30-5455(CA)

Dear Mr. Ferenczy:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the 

complaint in the above-name case alleging violation of Section 19(a)

(1), (5) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

I find that your request for review raises material issues

of fact and policy which can best be resolved after a hearing.

Accordingly, your request for review is granted, and the case is

remanded to the Assistant Regional Director who is directed to r e i n ­

state the complaint and to issue a notice of hearing in this proceeding.

Sincerely,

L’ .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y =

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 *

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

383
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

August 30, 1974

Mr. John A. Snowberger

LMR Representative

American Federation of Government

Employees, Local 2760 412

P. 0. Box 11262 - Station E 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112

Dear Mr. Snowberger:

This is in response to your letter of August 10, 1974, in which 

you request "review of the refusal to accept an Unfair Labor Practices 

Complaint and the refusal to accept a written charge of unfair labor 

practices" on the part of the Dallas Area Director of the LaborManagement Services Administration (LMSA).

Section 6(a) of Executive Order 11491, as amended, (copy enclosed), 

provides that in matters arising under Section 6(a) of the Order 

(including the authority to decide unfair labor practice complaints 

under Section 6(a)(4)) which involve the Department of Labor, "the 

duties of the Assistant Secretary described in paragraphs [6](a) and (b) 

of this section shall be performed by a member of the Civil Service 

Commission designated by the Chairman of the Commission." Accordingly, 

as your complaint alleges an unfair labor practice on the part of the 

Department of Labor, this matter comesfwithin the jurisdiction of the 

Civil Service Commission.

The Civil Service Commission Regulations issued under the authority 

of Section 6 (a) of the Order are to be found in 5 CFR Section 711 (copy 

enclosed). Among other things, you should note that Section 711.102(c) 

provides that a complaint should be filed with the General Counsel,

U. S. Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C., on forms prescribed 

by the Assistant Secretary.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

SEPT 13 1974

Mr. William B. Roach

Gaston Route

Mt. Ida, Arkansas 71957

Re: USDA Forest Service 

Hot Springs, Arkansas 

Case No. 64-2340 (CA)

Dear Mr. Roach:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your complaint alleging that the USDA Forest Service (Activity) violated Section 19(a)(1), (4) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the Assistant 

Regional Director that the allegations in your complaint concerning 

your termination and suspension in 1972 and your reassignment in September 1973, are untimely under the Assistant Secretary's Regulations 

Moreover, I agree with his conclusion that Section 19(d) of the Order 

prohibits the consideration of the allegations in your complaint, including the allegation concerning your administrative reassignment on 

January 20, 1974, as all such allegations have previously been raised 

under the Agency grievance or appeals procedure.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

dismissal of the complaint by the Assistant Regional Director, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

384
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 13, 1974

Mr. Arthur B. Johnson 

President, American Federation of

Government Employees, Social Security

Local 1336, AFL-CIO 4 1 4

Box 15281 1

Room 1146, 601 East 12th Street 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Re: Social Security Administration

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors 

Insurance 

Mid-American Program Center 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Case No. 60-3623(CA)

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of a-complaint filed by American Federation of Government Employees,

Social Security Local 1336, AFL-CIO (AFGE) alleging, in part, 

that the Social Security Administration, Bureau of Retirement 

and Survivors Insurance, Mid-American Program Center (Activity), 

violated Section 19(a)(6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find in agreement with 

the Assistant Regional Director that further proceedings in 

this matter are unwarranted. It is your contention that the 

Activity failed to consult and confer with the AFGE prior to 

the implementation of changes in its policy on the right of 

union officials serving as acting supervisors to receive official 

time to conduct union business. In this connection, you claim 

that in consulting and conferring with the AFGE's Vice President, 

Treasurer and Head Steward the Activity did not satisfy its 

bargaining obligation because, allegedly, such officials lacked 

authority to represent the AFGE.

It was concluded that in meeting and conferring with the 

AFGE's Vice President, Treasurer, and Head Steward, the Activity 

satisfied its bargaining obligations under the Order. Thus, 

these AFGE officials had apparent authority to represent the 

AFGE in labor relations matters by virtue of the offices they 

hold and it was incumbent upon them or the AFGE to advise the

-2-

Activity of any limitations on such authority. Also, it was 

noted that the evidence revealed that these officials had 

served as representatives of the AFGE in the past without any 

expressed restrictions on their authority.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the dismissal of the complaint by the Assistant Regional 

Director, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U .S. D E P A R T M E N T O F LA B O R

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H IN G T O N

7 - / 3 - T V

Ms, Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal 

Employees 

1737 H Street, N, W.

Washington, D, C. 20006

Mr, J. Richard Hall 

President, Local 1437

National Federation of Federal A4 r

Employees ^ ^

241 Sixth Avenue

New York, New York 10014

8e: U, S« Department of Army 

Picatinn'y Arsenal

Case No. 32-3523(RO)

Dear Ms, Cooper and Mr* Hall:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Report and Findings on Objections to Conduct of 

Election of the Assistant Regional Director which found your 

objections to be without merit.

In your objections, you state that many factors including 

certain acts and conduct by management, management officials «r>H 

by the Petitioner, Local 225, American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, affected the results of the election in the 

subject case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I 

conclude that you have not met the burden of proof necessary 

to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct 

involved improperly affected the results of the election or that 

a relevant question of fact exists warranting a hearing.

Accordingly, your request for review,seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director’s Report and Findings on Objections 

to Conduct of Election, is denied.

Sincerely,

Pnui J, Fasser, Jr.

Assisr.r.nt Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 20, 1974

Mr. Carl Abramowitz 

207 Hampton Avenue 

Brooklyn, New York 11235

Re:

416

Council of Customs Locals, 

AFGE, Locals 2652, 2768, and 

2899, AFL-CIO 

Case No. 30-5569(CQ)

Dear Mr. Abramowitz:

This is in connection with your request for reconsideration 

of September 8 , 1974, with respect to my ruling of August 30, 1974, 

in the above-named case.

The grounds set forth in your request for reconsideration of 

my ruling of August 30, 1974, were considered previously in connection 

with your original submission.

Under these circumstances, I find that your request for reconsideration does not raise additional facts which would require a 

contrary result. Accordingly, your request for reconsideration is 

hereby denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

386
O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 26, 1974

Ms. Dorothy Crackenberger 

1407 Willard Street 

Sturgis, South Dakota 57735

Re: United States Department of 

,Agriculture,

Farmers Horae Administration, 

Huron, South Dakota 

Case No. 60-3700(CA)

Dear Ms. Crackenberger:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your 

complaint alleging violation of Section "19(a)" of Executive Order 

11491, as amended.

I have reviewed the investigative file in this case and I 

agree with the decision of the Assistant Regional Director for the 

reasons stated that further proceedings on your complaint are 

unwarranted. • Section 19(a) of the Executive Order prohibits 

agency management from committing certain defined unfair labor 

practices. It provides, in part, that agency management shall 

not —

(1 ) interfere with, restrain, or coerce an employee_in 

the exercise of the rights assured by this Order; /this 

refers to the rights to form, join and assist labor 

organizations or to refrain from such activity._/

(2) encourage or discourage membership in a labor 

organization by discrimination in regard to hiring, 

tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment;

(3) sponsor, control, or otherwise assist a labor 

organization ....

(4) discipline or otherwise discriminate against an 

employee because he has filed a complaint or given 

testimony under this Order.

Thus, Section 19(a) essentially protects Federal employees 

from discriminatory treatment because of their union activity.

Upon considering the allegations of your complaint in light 

of the above discussion and, in addition to procedural shortcomings, 

noting the absence of any evidence of discrimination against you 

based on union activity, your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 26, 1974

Mr. John K. Cabral

American Federation of Government 418

Employees, Local 882, AFL-CIO 

2305 So. Beretania Street, Room 103 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96814

Re: Department of the Navy 

U. S. Naval Station 

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 

Case No. 73-558

Dear Mr. Cabral:

Your request for review seeking reversal of the Assistant 

Regional Director's denial of the Intervenor's (AFGE) motion to 

dismiss the petition filed by the International Federation of Federal 

Police (IFFP) in the subject case is denied.

As stated in the Assistant Secretary's Report on a Decision 

No. 8 (copy attached), no provision is made for the filing of a 

request for review of an Assistant Regional Director's (formerly 

Regional Administrator's) action in denying a motion to dismiss a 

petition. Accordingly, your request for review cannot be considered 

by the Assistant Secretary. I regret any inconvenience caused by 

the inadvertent reference to request for review procedures which 

was set forth in the Assistant Regional Director's denial of the 

AFGE's motion to dismiss in this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 27, 1974

Mr. J. M. Hopperstad 

President

American Federation of Government

Employees, Local 1857, AFL-CIO 41*)

5305 Watt Avenue ^

P. 0. Box 1037

North Highlands, California 95660

Re: Department of the Air Force 

McClellan Air Force Base 

California 

Case No. 70-4232

Dear Mr. Hopperstad:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal, 

in part, of the Assistant Regional Director's Report arid Findings on Grievability and Arbitrability in the above named case, in which he found certain 

grievances to be untimely filed, and another grievance to be filed timely 

and grievable.

In your request for review, you contend that the Assistant Regional 

Director erred in finding that certain allegations contained in a grievance 

filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1857, AFL-CIO 

(AFGE) were untimely. The.evidence revealed that on February 12, 1974, the 

AFGE filed a grievance against the Activity in which it alleged that the 

Activity had violated the parties' negotiated agreement by failing to notify 

or consult with the AFGE concerning a change in a certain job classification. 

The AFGE amended the grievance on February 23, 1974, to allege that the 

Activity had violated the negotiated agreement by failing to give the AFGE 

the opportunity to be present on January 8 , 1974, at a formal discussion 

which involved a grievance concerning the reclassification of the subject 

position. The Activity had notified the AFGE on October 30, 1973, of the 

reclassification of the subject position and it had notified the AFGE, on 

February 27, 1974, of the previous formal discussion on the grievance involving such reclassification. On March 12, the Activity denied the grievance 

contending that both of the subject allegations were untimely pursuant to 

Section 4, Step 1 of Article XVI of the negotiated agreement which states 

that a grievance must be presented "within 15 work days after receipt of the 

notice of the action, or occurrence of the incident alleged to be a violation 

of this agreement."

388
Contrary to.the Assistant Regional Director,, and under all of the 

circumstances, I conclude that a reasonable basis exists to support your 

contention that the allegation in the instant grievance involving the failure 

of the Activity to afford the AFGE the opportunity to be present at the 

formal discussion of January 8 , 1974, of the grievance pertaining to the reclassification of the instant position was filed timely. Thus, I conclude 

that one could reasonable interpret the language of Section 4, Step 1 of 

Article XVI of the negotiated agreement to mean that a grievance is timely 

if filed within 15 work days of the time the grievant becomes aware of the 

alleged violation. Accordingly, and noting that the parties have a negotiated 

procedure to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation and application 

of the language of their agreement, I find that the issue as to the timeliness 

of this allegation should be resolved through the use of the negotiated 

procedure provided for in Article XVI (Grievance and Arbitration Procedure) 

of the parties* negotiated agreement.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that the 

allegation in the grievance involving the failure of the Activity to notify 

the AFGE or discuss with it the change in the classification of the subject 

position was filed untimely. In reaching this conclusion, it was noted that 

the AFGE was advised of the change in classification on October 30, 1973, and 

that the grievance concerning such reclassification was not filed until 

February 12, 1974. Further, it was noted that no request for review has been 

filed concerning the finding of the Assistant Regional Director that a grievance dealing with Article XXXI, Section 1 of the negotiated agreement was 

timely filed and was grievable.

Accordingly, the request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant 

Regional Director’s finding concerning the allegation involving the Activity’s 

failure to afford the AFGE the opportunity to be present at the January 8 

formal discussion of the grievance on the reclassification, is granted. In 

addition, the request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional 

Director’s findings involving the allegation concerning the failure of the 

Activity to notify or consult with the AFGE on changes in the subject job 

classification, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

September 27, 1974

Mr. Michael J. Massimino 

President, Local 1340

National Federation of Federal 420

Employees 

P. 0. Box 86

Pomona, New Jersey 08240

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

National Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Center 

Atlantic City, New Jersey 

Case No. 32-3615 (CA)

Dear Mr. Massimino:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your complaint 

in the subject case alleging a violation of Section 19(a)(1), (5) and (6) 

of the Executive Order, as amended.

The evidence establishes that the National Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Center’s (Respondent) supplement to FAA Order 3770.2A resulted 

from a higher level management interpretation of the existing Agency 

regulation, which interpretation was uniformly applicable to other 

"appointing jurisdictions" within the Agency. In such circumstances, I 

find that there is no right established under the Order, which would entitle 

you to the kind of information, i.e., the process (correspondence between 

the Respondent, FAA Headquarters and the Civil Service Commission on this 

matter) and the rationale utilized by higher level agency management in 

arriving at the interpretation of its own regulation, which was sought in 

your letter to the Respondent, dated March 27, 1974. With respect to the 

Respondent’s issuance of the local level regulation supplement and any 

other matters which might have adversely affected the unit employees, the 

evidence establishes you were given notice of the Respondent's intent to 

supplement the existing regulation in accordance with the Agency’s 

interpretation and afforded an adequate opportunity to comment thereon 

prior to the supplement’s issuance, but you failed to do so. Under all of 

the circumstances, therefore, I find, in agreement with the Assistant 

Regional Director, that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted.
- 2 -

Accordingly, and as there is insufficient evidence to establish a 

reasonable basis for your contention that the Respondent violated Section 

19(a)(1),* (5) or (6) of the Order, and no evidence to support your contention that the Assistant Regional Director decided the merits of the case 

without fully and fairly considering all relevant evidence, your request 

for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's 

dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Ofjicn Of T f i e A ' s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y ~ *

WASHINGTON*. D.C. 20210 v- i \ :.v-j ^

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Roy J. Bucholtz 

Assistant Counsel,

National Treasury Employees Union A 0 4

Suite 1101 '

1730 K Street, N.W.

Washington-, D.C. 20006

Re: Internal Revenue Service

Greensboro District Office 

Greensboro, North Carolina 

Case No. 40-5314(AP)

Dear Mr. Bucholtz:

I have considered carefully your request for review, and the 

addendum thereto, seeking reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional 

Director's Report and Findings on Grievability or Arbitrability in the 

above-named case, wherein he found that the negotiated agreement did not 

provide for advisory arbitration of whether an employee's downgrading 

was voluntary or involuntary.

In your request for review you contend that if the employee's 

request to be downgraded was in fact involuntary, the personnel action 

becomes a constructive downgrading.or an adverse .action, and it is 

undisputed that under Section 32 of the negotiated agreement advisory 

arbitration is available for adverse actions.

Contrary to the Acting Assistant Regional Director, I conclude 

that in the particular circumstances of this case both the threshold 

question of determining whether an involuntary downgrading of an employee 

is an adverse action and thus subject to advisory arbitration under 

Article 32 "Advisory Arbitration of Adverse Actions," of the negotiated 

agreement, as well as a finding on the merits (if the arbitrator determines 

that such action is subject to the provisions of Article 32) involve 

quest Lons of interpretation and application of such negotiated agreement 

arid should be resolved through the negotiated procedure.

Accordingly, your request for review is granted and the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director's finding to the contrary is set aside.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

390
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

SEP 27 1974

Mr. Francisco Rivera 

Chief Steward

American Federation of Government

Employees A O O

Local Union 4142 *±66

229 Havana Street 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78405

Re: U. S. Army Aeronautical Depot 

Maintenance Center,

Corpus Christi, Texas 

Case No. 63-4887 (CA)

Dear Mr. Rivera:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint alleging violation of Section 19(a)(2) of Executive Order 11491, 

as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

insufficient evidence has been presented to establish a reasonable 

basis to support the complaint that you were denied a promotion because of union activity. Thus, I conclude that the complaint was 

properly dismissed.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OCT 3, 1974

Mr. Michael J. McMorrow

Ms. Edna Bee

U. S. Department of Commerce 423

Maritime Commission 

Room 4898-C

Washington, D.C. 20235

Re: Department of Commerce,

U. S. Merchant Marine Academy,

Kings Point, New York 

Case No. 30-5455 (CA)

Dear Mr. McMorrow and Ms. Bee:

This is in response to your Motion for Reconsideration or, in the 

alternative, for Clarification of Order, in the above named case.

The Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied as, in my view, 

it does not raise any matter which was not considered previously in 

connection with the August 30, 1974, disposition of the request for 

review in the subject case.

Your alternative Motion for Clarification of the Order also is 

denied. In this connection, it is noted, among other things, that the 

appropriate interpretation of provisions of the parties negotiated 

agreement are disputed by the parties and that the Activity acknowledged this disagreement in its response to the request for review in 

this matter. Under these circumstances, and as the disposition of 

the remaining aspects of the complaint depend, in part, upon the interpretation of the negotiated agreement, your Motions are hereby 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y ,;r?

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 %, £ 8 3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ms, Myrtle Lia

2324 Ft. Stockton Drive

San Diego, California 92103

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital 

La Jolla; California 

Case No. 72-4646

Dear Ms. Lia:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint filed in the above-named case.

It is found that the request for review in this matter is 

procedurally defective in that, contrary to the requirement of 

Section 202.6(d) and Section 203.7(c) of the Regulations of the 

Assistant Secretary, a copy of the request for review was not 

served on the Veterans Administration Hospital, La Jolla,

California, the Respondent herein, although you were advised that 

you wore required to do so in the decision of the Assistant Regional 

Director.

Accordingly, the merits of the case have not been considered 

and your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant 

Regional Director’s dismissal of your complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

/ o - j o - 7 /

Mr. Vincent J. Paterno

President AO*\

Association of Civilian Technicians, Inc. “x^cl

343A Hungerford Court 

Rockville, Maryland 20850

Re: The Adjutant General,

State of Illinois,

Illinois National Guard 

Case No. 50-S635(CA)

National Guard Bureau,

. Washington, D. C.

Case No. 50-9636(CA)

Dear Mr. Paterno:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Directors dismissal of the 

complaints filed in the above-named cases.

It is concluded that under all of the.circumstances a 

reasonable basis for the Section 19(a)(1) and (6) allegations in 

the subject complaints was established. Accordingly, your 

request fcr review seeding reversal of the dismissal of your 

complaints in this regard is granted and the Assistant Regional 

Director is directed to reinstate these allegations in the complaints 

and to issue a notice of hearing, absent settlement.

•Vith respect to the Section 19(a)(2) allegations in the 

complaints, it is concluded, in agreement with the Assistant 

Regional Director, that further proceedings are unwarranted.

Sincerely, u

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Orncr. o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

392
JC f J I! 7974

Mr. Robert M, Tobias

Counsel * 2 6

Wat:.onal Treasury Employees Union -xa*vt

Suite 1101 - 1730 K Street, N. V/.

Washington, D, C. 20006

Re: Internal Revenue Service 

Chamblee Service Center 

Chamblee, Georgia 

Case No. 40-5335'(CA)

Dear Mr. Tobias:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeding 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director*s dismissal of the 

subject complaint filed by the National Treasury Employees Union 

(NTEU) and NTEU Chapter 070, alleging violations of Section 19(a) r 

(1), (2) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended, by the 

Internal Revenue Service, Chamblee Service Center, Chamblee,

Georgia (Activity).

Under all of the circumstances, including,but not limited 

to, the Activity's past practice of allowing unit employees to 

escort National Representatives of the NTEU while such representative s at the Activity and the parties' divergent characterizations 

with regard to the October 1S73 discussion of the matter between 

NTEU and Activity representatives, I find that a reasonable basis 

for the complaint exists with respect to the 19(a)(1) and (6) 

allegations that the Activity had failed to consult and negotiate 

with the NTEU with regard to the Activity's November 2S, 1973, 

change in the escort policy.

Accordingly, that portion of the complaint is remanded to 

the Assistant Regional Director for reinstatement of the 19(a)

(1) and (C) allegations of the complaint and the issuance oi a 

Notice of Hearing.

With respect to the Section 19(a)(2) allegations, I find in 

agreement with, the Assistant Regional Director, that the evidence 

did not disclose a reasonable basis for the complaint with respect 

to such allegations.

Sincerely,

Paul J. i’asstsr, Jr.

Assistant Secretary o f Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

October 10, 1974

Mr. Glenn Hicks

President, National Federation of 4 2 7

Federal Employees, Local 158 

1730 S. Chapano 

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001

Re: Department of the Army

White Sands Missile Range 

White Sands Missile Range, New 

Case No. 63-4930(CA)

Dear Mr. Hicks:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your 

complaint alleging that the Department of the Army, White Sands 

Missile Range (Activity) violated Sections 19(a)(1), (2) and (6) 

of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that the Section 19(a)(1) and (2) allegations contained in the 

subject complaint were filed untimely in that these allegations 

were filed less than 30 days subsequent to the date the pre-complaint 

charge in this regard was filed and prior to any final written 

decision on the charge. Moreover, I find that, even assuming that 

such allegations were filed timely, further proceedings would be 

unwarranted as there is no evidence that the alleged improper 

treatment accorded Richards and Campos was motivated by anti-union 

considerations. .

Further, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director,

I find that there was insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable 

basis for the 19(a)(6) allegations in the complaint. Also there was 

insufficient evidence presented to sustain the allegation that 

certain employees had cancelled their membership in the NFFE because 

of improper conduct by the Activity.

Regarding your request that you be afforded the opportunity 

to present additional evidence should it be determined that the 

evidence presented previously was insufficient to sustain the complaint, I call to your attention Assistant Secretary's Report
Number 46 (copy enclosed) which states, in part, that, "...evidence 

or information required by the Regulations that is furnished for 

the first time in a request for review, where a Complainant has 

had adequate opportunity to furnish it during the invesitgation 

period ... and prior to the issuance of the Regional Administrator's 

]_ now designated as Assistant Regional Director/ decision, shall not 

be considered by the Assistant Secretary."

Under all of these circumstances, your request for review, 

seeking reversal of the dismissal of the complaint by the Assistant 

Regional Director, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f ic ii o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

October 15, 1974

Mr. Allen B. Coats

General Representative 428

Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO

431 Rio Del Mar

Vallejo, California 94590'

Re: San Francisco Naval Public Works Center 

Case Nos. 70-4328 and 7C^4309

Dear Mr. Coats:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

petition filed by Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO (MTD) in Case 

No. 70-4328, and his dismissal of the MTD's request f intervention 

in Case No. 70-4309. ■

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

the petition and the request to intervene, dated July 1974, and 

received in the San Francisco Area Office, San FrancisCalifornia, 

on July 10, 1974, were filed untimely and that, thereJ'- 2, the 

petition must be dismissed and the request to. in&erveri , :mus£ :be 

denied for that reason. Thus, the evidence establish**! that the 

prescribed Notice to Employees of the petition filed by the Activity 

in Case No. 70-4309 was posted by the latter on June 26, 1974. In 

accordance with Section 202.5(b) and (c) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations, a petition or request for intervention must be filed 

within ten days after the initial date of posting of the notice of 

petition. Under these circumstances, the last day for the filing of 

a cross-petition or a request for intervention was July 8, 1974.

In your request for review you state that you were expecting 

certain documents from the Activity and, therefore, waited until 

July 8 , 1974, to mail the petition and request for intervention. You 

contend that both the petition and request for intervention were timely 

filed because they were mailed and postmarked on July 3, 1974, which 

was the last day of the posting period. However, it is clear that 

under Section 202.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations,

"No labor organization may participate to any extent in any representation proceeding unless it has notified the Area Administrator 

in writing ... of its desire to intervene within ten (10 ) days after 

the initial date of posting of the notice of petition ..." (emphasis 

added).

394
Accordingly, and as good cause has not been shown for extending 

the period allowed- for the timely filing of the petition and request 

to intervene, your request for review seeking reversal of the Assistant 

Regional Director's dismissal of the petition in Case No. 70-4328 and 

denial of the request for intervention in Case No. 70-4309, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

/ O

Mr, Thomas Gosselin 

2>'srion?.I Field Representative 

National Treasury Employees Union 

Suite 1101 - 1730 K Street, N, W.

Washington, D.' Ci 20006 '

Re: Internal Revenue Service 

Austin Service Center 

Case No. 63-4995(G&A)

Dear I.ir, Gosselin:

I have considered .carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant' Regional" Director's' Report amT Findings 

on Grievability and Arbitrability in the above-named case wherein 

he found your Application to have been filed untimely.

Contrary to the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

the Application herein was timely filed. Thus, I conclude that the 

prescribed sixty (60) day filing period under Section 205.2(a) 

did not commence until there was a final written rejection as to 

the arbitrability of the matters in dispute pursuant to the 

invoking of arbitration under the negotiated agreement. Therefore, 

as the. arbitration clause of the negotiated agreement was not 

invoked until March 25, 1974, the Activity's letter in response, 

dated April 3, 1974, was considered as the final rejection, rather 

than the letter of March 15, 1974, which was considered as the final 

rejection by the Assistant Regional Director. Accordingly, and 

noting that as.the final rejection was served by mail, in accordance 

with Section 206.2 of the Regulations an additional three days are 

added to the prescribed sixty day period, I find that the instant 

application docketed June 10, 1974, was filed timely under Section 

205.2(a) of the Regulations.

With respect to the question of arbitrability; I conclude 

that, in the circumstances of this case, both the threshold question 

of determining whether the placing of a seasonal employee in non-duty 

status for reasons other than workload is an adverse action and thus 

subject to advisory arbitration under Article 31 of the negotiated 

agreement, as well as a finding on the merits, involve questions 

concerning the interpretation and application of the negotiated 

agreement and should be resolved through; the- negotiated procedure.

Ik C$3
Accordingly, your request for review is granted and the 

Assistant Regional Director's finding to the contrary is set 

as idc.

SIncerely,

- 2

Paul J . Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

October 25, 1974

George Tilton, Esq.

Associate General Counsel

National Federation of Federal 4 ^ 0

Employees **00

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of Agriculture 

Office of Investigation 

Temple, Texas 

Case No. 63-4992(RO)

Dear Mr. Tilton:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s denial of the^request 

for intervention in the subject case by the National Federation of 

Federal Employees, Local 1375 (NFFE).

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

the request to intervene, dated July 8 , 1974, and received in the 

Dallas Area Office, Dallas, Texas, on July 9, 1974, was untimely filed 

and must be denied for that reason. In this regard, it was noted that 

the prescribed Notice to Employees of the petition in this matter, 

filed by American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Local 3542 (AFGE), was posted by the Activity on June 24, 1974, and 

remained posted through July 5, 1974. This notice reads, in part, 

as follows:

n. . . that in accordance with the Regulations of the 

Assistant Secretary, any labor organization, including 

any incumbent labor organization, having an interest 

in representing the employees being sought and desiring 

to intervene in this proceeding MUST submit to the Area 

Administrator, within 10 days from the date of_the posting 

of this notice /(evidence of showing of interest/. . ."

(Emphasis added)

Although the posted Notice to Employees in and of itself was considered to be adequate notice to the NFFE, the evidence further indicates 

that the NFFE was notified by letter, dated June 21, 1974, from the Area

396
Office of the filing of the AFGE petition in the subject case, which 

letter attached a copy of the petition, and set forth the requirements 

of Section 202.5 of the Assistant Secretary’s Regulations regarding 

intervention.

Under all of these circumstances, I conclude that the NFFE had 

actual, as well as constructive, notice of the filing of the AFGE's 

petition in the subject case and failed to file a timely intervention 

within the prescribed ten-day period after the initial posting of the 

notice of petition. See Section 202.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations and Report on a Ruling No. 43 (copy enclosed).

Accordingly, and noting that good cause has not been shown for 

extending the period allowed for timely intervention, your request 

for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's 

denial of intervention, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

October 25, 1974

James R. Rosa, Esq.

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 4 ^ 1

Employees, AFL-CIO 

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Naval Air Rework Facility 

Pensacola, Florida and 

Secretary of the Navy, 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 42-2529(CA)

Dear Mr. Rosa:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's partial dismissal of 

the complaint in the above named case alleging violations of Section 

19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

further proceedings with regard to the Section 19(a)(6) allegation 

against the Secretary of the Navy are unwarranted. Thus, in my view, 

the obligation to meet and confer under Section 11(a) of the Order 

applies only in the context of the exclusive bargaining relationship 

between the exclusive representative and the activity or agency which 

has accorded exclusive recognition. In this regard, it was noted that 

the Activity herein and not the Secretary of the Navy accorded recognition to the exclusive representative and is a party to the negotiated 

agreement that was in effect at all times material herein.

However, under the particular circumstances of this case, I find, 

contrary to the Assistant Regional Director, that a reasonable basis 

exists for the 19(a)(1) allegation in the complaint against the 

Secretary of the Navy. Thus, while the Assistant Regional Director 

correctly concluded that a derivative 19(a)(1) complaint would be inappropriate in these circumstances, I find that a reasonable basis exists 

for the complaint against the Secretary of the Navy insofar as it is 

alleged that the latter independently violated Section 19(a)(1) by 

improperly interfering with terms of an existing negotiated agreement
- 2 -

between the exclusive representative and the Activity herein. Accordingly, 

your request for review is granted, in part, and the case is remanded 

to the Assistant Regional Director who is directed to reinstate the 

Section 19(a)(1) portion of the complaint against the Secretary of the 

Navy and, absent settlement, to issue a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

October 25, 1974

Ms. Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney

National Federation of 432

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street* N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Tobacco Division

Agricultural Marketing Service

Case No. 41-3686(CA)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint in the above-named, case.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further-proceedings 

in this matter are unwarranted. You contend that the remark by 

Mr. Ray Douglas, a Tobacco Division Supervisor, to W. T. Church, Acting 

President of Local 1555, National Federation of Federal Employees 

(NFFE)', that the union should not take on Ms. Pickral’s case because . 

"mud would be thrown in the union's face," constituted an improper 

attempt to>discourage NFFE from representing Ms. Pickral. In my view, 

such statement, standing alone, does not establish a reasonable basis 

for the complaint. In this regard, it was noted that the remark in 

question was made in an informal conversation between Douglas and Church 

with no employees present, that the NFFE was not obligated under Section 

10(e) of the Order to represent Ms. Pickral, an employee not in an 

exclusive bargaining unit, and that the NFFE subsequently represented 

Ms. Pickral at the proceeding brought under the agency grievance 

procedure.

Accordingly, as a reasonable basis for the complaint has not 

been established in this matter, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

398
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Michael J. Massimino

President, Local 1340

National Federation of Federal

Employees ftdo

P.O. Box 86

Pomona, New Jersey 0 8240

Re: Federal Aviation Administration

National Aviation Facilities

Experimental Center

Atlantic City, New Jersey

Case No. 32-3649(CA)

Dear Mr. Massimino:

I have considered carefully your request for review

in which you seek reversal of the Assistant Regional

Director's dismissal of your complaint in the above-named

case, which alleges violation of Section 19(a)(6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director,

I find that further proceedings on your complaint are

not warranted. Thus, for the reasons cited by the Assistant Regional Director, I find that a reasonable basis

for the complaint has not been established in that the

evidence does not reveal that the Activity herein improperly failed or refused to meet and confer, upon request,

with Local 1340, National Federation of Federal Employees,

over the proposed issuance of supplements to certain

agency regulations.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal

of your complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O r n r r . o f t i n , A s s i s i a n t S e c r e t a r y

W a s h i n g t o n , d .c . 20210 \ >"'. ;

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

/ c / /

Mr. Alfonso Garcia 

National Representative 

American Federation of

Government Employees (AFL-CIO) 

5911 Dwyer Road #28 

New Orleans, La. 70126

434

Re: USAE Waterways Experiment Station 

Vicksburg, Mississippi 

Case No. 41-3599(R0)

Dear Mr. Garcia:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the petition 

in the instant case filed by the American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3310, seeking a unit of all fire fighters 

at the USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

I find that the request for review raises questions of fact 

and policy as lo the guard related duties performed by employees 

classified as fire fighters which can best ue lesoived on Lhe udaio 

of record testimony. Accordingly, the Assistant Regional Director is 

directed to reinstate the petition and issue a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

399
& . J

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y r

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 \ ;g | j

Mr. Larry A. Henson 

Forest Supervisor

U. S. Department of Agriculture A'l'Z

Forest Service *±0 0

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests 

Russellville, Arkansas 72801

Re: U. S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Ozark-St. Francis National Forests 

Russellville, Arkansas 

Case No. 64-2268(R0)

Dear Mr. Henson:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's finding that inroper 

conduct had occurred in the subject case warranting the setting aside 

of the election and the direction of a rerun election.

The Assistant Regional Director determined that a pre-election 

speech by the Administrator of the Activity's Sylamore Ranger District 

contained statements "that were incorrect and misleading and other 

statements which, taken together and in context of the talk as a whole, 

could possibly have been construed as encouraging employees indifferent 

as to the outcome of the election, to vote against exclusive representation." He noted in this regard that it is clearly established policy, 

as expressed in the Order, that agency or activity management must 

remain neutral in any representation election campaign and that the 

talk involved herein was confusing and may have left the impression 

on employees that Activity management was opposed to the election of 

an exclusive representative.

In your request for review, you disagree with the Assistant 

Regional Director's characterization of the speech, and you note that 

officials of the Petitioner, Local 1075, National Federation of Federal 

Employees, Independent (NFFE), attended the meeting Involved and 

responded affirmatively at least two times when asked if information 

given was correct. Although you concede that certain information "may 

not have been completely accurate," you emphasize that there was no 

intent to misinform. Finally, you argue that the objecting party has

- 2 -

not met its burden of proof in sustaining the objection because "we have

received no evidence presented by NFFE to prove the charge," and "it

appears the findings have been derived primarily from our own transcript 

of the meeting in question."

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that 

employees reasonably could interpret the speech involved herein as 

casting doubt upon the neutrality of the Activity, which neutrality is 

required in an election campaign conducted pursuant to the Order. In 

reaching this conclusion, I note especially the inference that the more 

votes cast, the more chance the NFFE would lose, which inference was 

clearly left by the Administrator's comment: "if you throw away /the 

vote/ — and you really don't want a union, but you throw it away and 

don t bother to vote, then it takes less positive voters for a union."

In my judgment, it is important to recognize that neither the intent 

of the speech nor the lack of protest by the NFFE's representatives who 

were present is determinative of whether certain conduct may have 

improperly affected the election herein. Rather, the question in all 

cases is simply whether the conduct objected to might reasonably be 

found to have improperly affected the results of the election.

While I shall affirm the Assistant Regional Director's decision 

to direct a new election in this matter, it should be emphasized that 

by so doing I do not seek to negate attempts by activity or agenc 

management to urge employees to vote. The objectionable aspect o. 'he 

speech in this case is the fact that management’s position could 

reasonably be interpreted by employees as opposing the election of the 

NFFE as exclusive representative. A speech encouraging employees to 

vote could legitimately inform them that the outcome is determined by 

the majority of votes cast for or against representation. This message 

would encourage voting and still give no indication that management 

has a preference for or against exclusive recognition.

Based on the foregoing circumstances, I find that the burden of 

proving the objection har \ ^ n sustained. Further, you have not raised 

any questions as to the authenticity of your own transcript of the meeting 

upon which the Assistant Reg jnal Director's findings were based. 

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant 

Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections to Conduct of 

Elections, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

400
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ur. Stanley Q. Lyman 

National Vice President 

Federal Aviation Science and 

Technological Association 

National Association of Government A Q C

Employees *400

285 Dorchester Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Federal Aviation Administration 

JFK International Airport 

Jamaica, New York 

Case No. 30-5640(26)

Dear Ur. Lyman:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Begional Director's dismissal of a complaint filed by the Federal Aviation Science and Technological 

Association (FASTA), affiliated with the National Association of 

Government Employees alleging that the Federal Aviation Administration, JFK International Airport violated Section 19(a)(1) and

(3) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with 

the Assistant Regional Director, that because the FASTA did not 

file a pre-complaint charge in this matter, as required by Section 

203.2(a) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations, dismissal of 

the instant complaint is warranted. With respect to your contention 

that the subject complaint be treated as a pre-complaint charge, it 

was noted that Section 203.2(a) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations provides, in part, that a charge in writing must be filed 

directly with the party against whom the charge is directed and 

the parties involved shall investigate the alleged unfair labor 

practice and attempt informally to resolve the matter. The instant 

complaint does not satisfy the foregoing requirements related to a 

pre-complaint charge. Further, the complaint enclosed with your 

request for review was not filed in accordance with Section 203.4 of 

the Assistant Secretary's Regulations which requires, in part, 

that a complaint be filed with the Area Administrator for the area 

in which the alleged unfair labor practice occurred.

- 2 -

Undor these circumstancos, your request for roviow, seeking 

reversal oI the dismissal of the iD3tant complaint by the Assistant 

Regional Director, Is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f p i c k o p t m j'. A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

10- 31- J < f

Mr. Robert E. Coy 

Assistant General Counsel

Veterans Administration 4 o 7

Office of General Counsel 

Washington,. D. C. 20420

Re: Veterans Administration Center 

Mountain Home, Tennessee 

Case No. 41-3624(AP)

Dear Mr. Coy:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings 

on Arbitrability.

In your request for review you contend that the Assistant 

Regional Director erred In finding that the February 11, 1974, 

grievance Is subject to arbitration under the negotiated grievance 

procedure contained in the parties' negotiated agreenent because:- 

(1) the grievance does not involve the Interpretation or application of the agreenent, and (2) the February 11, 1974, grievance 

was not filed under the negotiated grievance procedure.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find, 

in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, that the 

unresolved Issues herein Involve the interpretation.and application 

of the negotiated agreement and are arbitrable pursuant to the terms 

of the agreement. In this regard, it was noted that the February 11, 

1974, grievance clearly alleged violations of Section 3 and Section 

5 of Article XXII of the negotiated agreenent. Further, Article 

XXII, Section 1 of the agreement provide* that the negotiated 

grievance procedure "will be the sole procedure for processing 

grievance(s) over the Interpretation or application of the agreement 

and covers only those employees Included In the recognized unit . .

And, pursuant to Article XXII, Section 9 of the negotiated agreement, 

the exclusive representative has made a timely request for arbitration of the dispute.

Based on the foregoing, and noting that Section 13(a) of the 

Order provides that where a negotiated grievance procedure is available 

it shall be the exclusive procedure available to unit employees for

- 2 -

resolving grievances concerning the interpretation and application of 

the- agreement, I find that the-subject grievance is arbitrable under 

the negotiated agreement. Accordingly, your request for review, 

seeking to set aside the Assistant Regional Director's Report and 

Findings on Arbitrability, is denied.

Pursuant to Section 205.12 of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations, the parties shall notify the Assistant Regional Director 

for Labor-Management Services, Labor-Management Services Administration, United States Department of Labor, in writing, within 20 

days from date of this decision as to what steps have been taken 

to comply herewith. The Assistant Regional Director's address is: 

Room 300, 1371 Peachtree Street, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr; 

Assistant Secretary of Labor .

402
O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ur. Richard 0. Shave 

President, Local 943 

National Federation of Federal

Employees >40 0

Post Office Box K-65 

Keesler Station 

Biloxi, Hlssisslppl 39534

Be: Keesler Technical Training Center 

Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi 

Case No. 41-3673(CA)

Dear Ur. Shave:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint in the above-named case alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

It Is your contention that the Activity failed to consult 

with you regarding the "specific car pooling/parking plan which 

was implemented at this Center," by memorandum dated February 26, 

1974.

The evidence reveals that your labor organization was 

notified at a meeting with the Commanding Officer on February 20, 

1974, of the change in local parking policy required by the 

government-wide energy conservation policy published in the Federal 

Register and promulgated by the Oeneral Services Administration 

(GSA). Thereafter, on February 26, 1974, the Commanding Officer 

Issued a memorandum to all activities at Keesler Air Force Base 

to the effect that this GSA policy would be Implemented as of 

March 7, 1974. Despite the above notifications of the required 

changes, your labor organization failed to request that the Activity 

meet and confer on either the impact of the change on employees 

in the unit which you represent or on the procedures for Implementing the new policy. Under these circumstances, I find that 

the Activity was under no obligation to meet and confer with your 

labor organization on these matters.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the instant

- 2 -

complaint alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

Order, Is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

403
' niTAKTiM KNT OF I.ABOK

f Jiii - i >ii i ii i, i a i .Si.< i* u i a n v

W A M I I N G ’I < »N

n - n - j - f

/

Hr. Jack L* Copess 

Secretary-Treasurer

Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades 4 Q Q

Council, AFL-CIO 

925 Bethel Street, Room 210 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Re: Department of the Navy

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 

Case No. 73-568

Dear Mr* Copes9:

1 have considered carefully your request for review, 

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal 

of the complaint in the above-named case alleging violation of 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I 

find that insufficient evidence has been presented to establish 

a reasonable basis for the complaint that the Respondent 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order* In this regard,

I a^ree with the Assistant Regional Director that, under the 

circumstances of this case, the failure of the superintendent 

of Shop 26 to meet immediately with the Union steward, upon 

the latter’s request, instead of the following morning as 

suggested by the superintendent, did not, standing alone, constitute a failure to meet and confer at a reasonable time with 

the Complainant as required by Section 11(a) of the Order* Thus, 

I conclude that the Instant complaint was properly dismissed*

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is 

denied*

Sincerely,

Paul J* Fasser, Jr*

Assistant Secretary of Labor

//-//-//

Michael Sussman, Esq.

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal AAC\

Eaployees 

1737 H Street, H. W.

Washington, O. C. 20006

Re: United States Information Agency 

Broadcasting Service (VOA)

New York, New York 

Case No. 30-5579(R£»

Dear Mr. Sussman:

I have considered carefully your request for review, 

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal 

of the petition in the subject case filed by the National 

Federation of Federal Employees.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with 

tbe Assistant Regional Director, that dismissal of the petition 

in this natter is warranted. Thus, the evidence establishes 

that the instant petition was not filed within the 90-60 day 

period prior to the expiration of the negotiated agreement 

between the Activity and the American Federation of Government 

Employees, Local 1812, AFL-CIO, covering the claimed employees, 

and that, consequently, the petition is untimely and is barred 

under Section 202.3(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the instant 

petition, is denied.

Sincerely,

U.5 . DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR

OrjM.!: of r m e A ssista n t S k c k k t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

404
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Omcr-; nr tiii: A s s i s t a n t Sr.caETARY 

W A S H IN G T O N

II - U r 'J-jMr* Calvin Williams 

Deputy Regional Director

Office of Economic Opportunity AA-4

Region IX 4 4 1

100 McAllister Street 

San Francisco, California 94102

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Region IX 

San Francisco, California 

Case No. 70-4236

Dear Ur. Williams:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings 

on Grievablllty and Arbitrability.

In your request for review, you contend that the Assistant 

Regional Director erred in finding that the February 5, 1974, grievance is subject to arbitration under the negotiated grievance procedure. However, I am advised that prior to the date of your 

request for review, the grievance which is the subject of the 

Application herein,did, in fact, proceed to arbitration and that 

prior to tho completion of the arbitration process the parties 

entered into a settlement agreement dated July 18, 1974, which 

resolved any allegations or claims alleged in the February 5, 1974, 

grievance.

Pursuant to Section 6(a)(5) of the Order the Assistant 

Secretary Is responsible for deciding "questions as to whether a 

grievance is subject to a negotiated grievance procedure or subject 

to arbitration under an agreement." As the evidence in the instant 

case reveals that the parties have entered Into a settlement 

agreement, which disposed of the grievance, I find that the issue 

raised in the Instant Application is moot. Accordingly, the 

Application for decision on grlevability or arbitrability in the 

instant case is dismissed.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

/

//-//- 7 /

I.. ;. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O j ;K K (IF D I E .ViniSTANT SilCII KTA Ft Y

W A S H [ N ' G I O N

442

Re: National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

John F. Kennedy Space Center 

Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

Case No. 42-2497(AP)

Dear Mr. Crain:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings 

on Grievability in th$ above-named case.

In your request for review, you assert that a decision 

should be rendered on the merits of your grievance which has been 

processed through the negotiated grievance procedure. In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, and based upon his 

fact findings and reasoning, I find that the Application herein 

should be dismissed.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking the setting 

aside of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Grievablllty. is denied. ' ’ ’

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Mr. Ronald L. Crain 

85 Carib Drive

Merritt Island, Florida 32952

405
Ontcr. o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 

W A S H I N G T O N

jf - ^.4 "- 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

William F. Crowell, Esq.,

Government and Service Employees 

Union, Local 3

Laundry and Dry Cleaning International AA'X

Union, AFL-CIO 

610 - 16th Street, Room 501 

Oakland, California 94612

Re: Department of the Navy 

Navy Exchange 

U„ S. Naval Air Station 

Alameda, California 

Case No. 70-4283(27)

Dear Mr. Crowell:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings 

on Grievablllty in the above named case* The Assistant Regional 

Director found that the Union's April 1, 1974, grievance was filed 

untimely and, accordingly, he dismissed the subject Application 

for Decision on Grievablllty which involves a grievance of April 11 

concerning the timeliness of the April 1 grievance.

In your request for review, you assert, in pertinent part, 

that the Assistant Regional Director's determination that the 

April 1 grievance was untimely filed is defective because it fails 

to indicate which time limitation of the agreement assertedly was 

violated in processing that grievance under the negotiated agreement. 

Further, you contend that the Assistant Regional Director exceeded 

his authority in deciding the issue of whether that grievance was 

filed timely, rather than the Issue of whether the matter of 

timeliness of the April 1 grievance was subject to the grievance 

and arbitration provisions of the parties' negotiated agreement.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that the grievance of 

April 11, which concerns the issue of whether the Union's earlier 

grievance of April 1 had been filed timely In accordance with the 

agreement, raises a matter Involving the Interpretation and 

application of the negotiated agreement. Thus, the grievance of 

April 11 raises an issue whether, under certain provisions of the 

negotiated agreement, namely, Article 20, Section 6 and 7(a) and 

(b), the April 1 grievance was filed timely* Accordingly, as the 

April 11 grievance is subject to the grievance and arbitration 

provisions of the parties' negotiated agreement, your request for 

review is granted and the Assistant Regional.Director's finding 

to the contrary is hereby set aside.

Pursuant to Section 205.12 of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations, the parties shall notify the Assistant Regional 

Director for Labor-Manageraent Services, Labor-Management Services 

Administration, United States Department of Labor, in writing, 

within 20 days from the date of this decision as to what steps 

have been taken to comply herewith. The Assistant Regional 

Director's address is: 9061 Federal Office Building, 450 Golden 

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102*

Sincerely,

Paul J* Fasser, Jr* 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

406
Mr. Phillip R. Kete 

Pre-sident,

American Federation of Government A A A

Employees, Union Local 2677 

1200 - 19th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20506

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity 

Local 2677,

National Council of 0E0 Locals, 

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO 

Case No. 22-5386(AP)

Dear Mr. Kete:

1 have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report ai)d Findings 

on Grievability or Arbitrability in the above-named case.

tn your request for review, you argue both that the Assistant 

Regional Director was incorrect in concluding that disputes over 

compliance with prior arbitration awards are not themselves arbitrable 

and that, nevertheless, this issue was not before him because the 

relief you sought in your grievance over the failure to comply with 

the prior arbitration award was the discipline of the management 

officials who declined to comply with the prior award, and not the 

arbitration of questions related to the enforceability of such award.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that the issue raised by the Activity's Application herein is not 

whether a grievance is arbitrable under a negotiated agreement, but, 

rather, goes to the enforcement of a prior arbitration award. In 

ay view, the enforcement of a prior arbitration award does not come 

within the Assistant Secretary's authority under Section 13 of the 

Order. Similarly, there is no authority granted in Section 13 

which would enable the Assistant Secretary to enforce disciplinary 

action for nonr-compliarice with an arbitrator's award.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking the setting 

aside of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on 

Grievability or Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

November 25, 1974

John J. Franco, Jr., Lt. Col., USAF

Labor Relations Counsel 4 4 ^

Office of the Staff Judge Advocate 

Sacramento Air Logistics '

McClellan Air Force Base, California 95652

Re: Department of the Air Force 

McClellan Air Force Base,

California

Case No. 70-4329

Dear Col. Franco:

I have considered carefully your request for review 

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings 

On Grievability in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you contend that: (1) the timeliness 

issue raised in this case is not subject to the negotiated grievance 

procedure, and that such issue should be. resolved by the Assistant 

Secretary; (2) the subject grievance is untimely and, thus, the AFGE is 

precluded from raising the matter under the negotiated grievance procedure; 

and (3) even assuming the grievance is found to have been filed timely, 

the subject matter of the grievance would not be grievable because it 

involves a promotion to a position which is excluded from the bargaining 

unit.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with the 

Assistant Regional Director, that the issues raised in this case should 

be resolved through the negotiated grievance procedure. In my view, 

the timeliness issue results from a dispute between the parties as to 

the interpretation and application of provisions of the negotiated 

agreement regarding the time period during which grievances may be filed.

In this regard, noted were the parties’ opposing positions with regard 

to whether the instant grievance is timely within the meaning of such 

provisions. As the resolution of the timeliness issue involves the 

interpretation and application of the negotiated agreement, I find that 

such issue should be resolved through the negotiated grievance procedure.

With respect to the issue concerning the grievability of the 

subject matter of the grievance, such issue involves a dispute between . 

the parties as to whether certain provisions of the agreement cover 

promotions to positions excluded from the bargaining unit. In this 

connection, noted particularly were the parties' opposing views with

-407
respect to the scope and intent of Article XXXI, Promotions» of the

negotiated agreement. I, therefore, find that the merits of the instant

grievance involves a dispute over the interpretation and application of

the parties * negotiated agreement and must be resolved in accordance

with the negotiated grievance procedure contained in such agreement.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant

Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievability, is denied.

Pursuant to Section 205.12 of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations,

the parties shall notify the Assistant Regional Director for LaborManagement Services, Labor-Management Services Administration, United

States Department of Labor, in writing, within 20 days from the date of

this decision as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith. The

Assistant Regional Director's address is 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Room

9061, San Francisco, California 94102.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of th e Assist a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

//-i 7 -/•/-

Mr. Endome H. G i l mo r e 

1531 - 52nd Avenue 

Apa rtmen t 20 I

Beavor Heights, Maryland 20027

Re: S e c u r i t i e s and Exchange 

Comm i s s i on 

Case No. 22 -5 3 7 1 (CA)

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

I have c o n s i d e r e d c a r e f u l l y y o u r r e que s t , f o r r e v i e w , 

seeking reversal of the A s s i s t a n t Regional D i r e c t o r ' s 

dismissal of the complaint in the above-named case, a l l e g ­

ing v io la t io n s of Section 19(a)(1), (2), (3) and (i) of 

E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 1 1^91 , as amended.

Unde r a l l o f the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , I f i n d , i n a g r e e me n t 

with the Assistant Regional Director, that further proceedings on the subject complaint are unwarranted.

Thus, with regard to a lle g at io n (a) of the complaint, 

that on Fe b r u a r y 13, 197*1, the C o m p t r o l l e r of the Res pondent " a l l e g e d l y was a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r i n the d e n i a l of 

/M^rs. F o x ' s / c i v i l r i g h t s in the n o n - d e d u c t i on of her u n i o n 

d u e s . . . " for the pay periods from January 20, 197*1 to the 

present, the evidence indicates that Mrs. Fox's dues 

d ed u ct i on was c a nc e ll e d on ly a f t e r she was e x p e l l e d from 

the Local of her Union. Moreover, there is i n s u f f i c i e n t 

evidence to e s t a b l i s h that the Respondent conspired with 

the Union to cause her expulsion from the Union, which 

act pre cipitated the cancellation of her dues deduction 

in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Personnel Manual.

A l l e g a t i o n (b) of Mrs. F o x 's complaint states that 

h e r h u s b a n d s e n t a t e l e g r a m on May 13, 197*), to the 

S e c r e t a r y of Labor a s k i n g him to i n v e s t i g a t e a l l e g a t i o n s 

by her of " b i z a r r e t hr eat s and h a r a s sm e nt s " by the A s s i s t a n t 

P e r s o n n e l D i r e c t o r o f the R e s p o n d e n t and by a f e l l o w 

employee. The evidence discloses that the date of the 

t e l e g r a m ( a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t F to M r s . F o x ' s u n f a i r l a b o r 

pra ctice charge) was, in fac t, January 22, 1973, and 

referred to ac tio ns committed p r i o r to that date. The

408
e v i d e n c e a l s o r e v e a l s t h a t th,e a c t s a l l e g e d as u n f a i r 

labor practices in this portion of the unfair labor 

p r a c t i c e c o m p l a i n t ( a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t s B and E o f the 

unfair labor practice charge letter) involve events 

which occur red more than nine months p r i o r to the f i l i n g 

of the instant unfair labor practice complaint. Accordingly, under Section 203.2(b)(3) of the A ssistant Secretary's 

R e g u l a t i o n s , s uch a l l e g a t i o n s are u n t i m e l y and may not be 

considered by the A s s i s t a n t Secretary.

F in ally , a llegation (c) of the complaint, a lle g in g 

continuous and continual harassment concerning Mrs. Fox's 

p o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n by her p re se nt s u p e r v i s o r , was not 

included in her unfair labor practice charges dated 

May 19, 1974, and served upon the Respondent on May 20,

1974. In this regard, Section 203.2(a) of the A ss i s t a n t 

S e c r e t a r y ' s R e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e s t h a t a c h a r g e be f i l e d 

and that ce rt a i n other procedural steps be completed 

b e f o r e a c o m p l a i n t i s f i l e d . As no c h a r g e had been f i l e d 

in this regard, the A ssistant Regional Director properly 

did not consider this part of the unfair labor practice 

comp 1 a i n t .

Based on a ll of the foreg oing , your request for 

review, seeking reversal of the dismissal of the instant 

complaint by the A s s i s t a n t Regional D i re c to r, is denied.

Si nee re 1y ,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

I

" M h f

Ms. Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney

National Federation of AAJ

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N. W. '

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of the Army

Indiana Army Ammunition Plant 

Charlestown, Indiana 

Case No. 50-11018(CA)

Dear Ms* Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the 

above-named case filed by NFFE Local 1581 alleging violations of 

Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that there is insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable 

basis to support the complaint that Ms. Phyllis Beyl was singled 

out for job audit purposes because of her union activity* With 

respect to your contention that an unidentified management official 

told Ms. Beyl n ..,to be careful they are out to get her,” it was 

noted that this unsupported allegation was raised for the first 

time in your request for review and, therefore, cannot be considered. See, in this regard, Report on a Ruling of the Assistant 

Secretary, No. 46. Under these circumstances, I conclude that the 

complaint was properly dismissed.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O i l (Li. o r T fi i. A s s i s t a n t S t.c r f.t a 'r y

W ASHINGTON

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

409
! ' X 7K

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic f . o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr, Frank B. James 

Executive Vice-President,

American Federation of Government

Employees, Local 1122, m a q

Western Program Center, 4 4 0

P. 0. Box 100

San Francisco, California 94101

Re: Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare, Social Security 

Administration,

San Francisco, California

Case No. 70-4278

Dear Mr. Janes:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

subject complaint filed by the American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1122 (AFGE) alleging violations of 

Section 19(a)(1), (2), (4) and (5) of Executive Order 11491, as 

amended, by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Social Security Administration, San Francisco, California (Activity).

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. As found 

by the Assistant Regional Director, the allegations in the complaint 

involve an alleged unilateral change in the criteria under which 

the Activity grants official time to union officials and result 

from a dispute between the parties on what constitutes "acceptable 

justification" under Article 10 of the negotiated agreement for the 

purpose of granting official time to such union officials. Thus, 

because the dispute herein involves the interpretation and application of express provisions of the parties* negotiated agreement,

I find that the matter should not be considered in the context of 

an unfair labor practice, but rather, should be resolved through 

the negotiated grievance procedure contained in the agreement.

See Report on a Ruling No. 49 (Copy enclosed). In addition, it 

was noted that no evidence 'was presented to support the AFGE’s 

contention that, prior to the alleged unilateral change in policy, 

the Activity had approved unlimited requests for use of official 

time by union officials without "presentation of acceptable

justification."

-Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

i

\

410
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O ffice o f t h e A s sist a n t S l c k l t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

■ >

Mr. Carmine T. Corrado

National Association of Government AAQ

Employees National Representative 

4713 Threechopt Road 

Hampton, Virginia 23666

Re: U. S. Army Training Aids 

Management Agency 

Case No. 22-53S8(RO)

Dear Mr. Corrado:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the denial by the Acting Assistant Regional Director 

of your request for intervention in the subject case.

The evidence establishes that the Notice of Petition in 

the instant case was posted on July 25, 1974, and that the terminal 

date for intervention was, therefore, August 5, 1974. Your request 

to intervene was untimely filed in that it was dated August 6, 

and nailed August 8, 1974.

In your request for review, you note that the Activity failed 

to notify the NAGE of information required under Section 202.4 ofthe Assistant Secretary's Regulations. In my view, the failure 

in this regard did not, standing alone, constitute good cause for 

extending the time within which intervention must be filed. Rather, 

in agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that the posting of the prescribed Notice of Petition constituted 

sufficient notice to afford all interested parties the opportunity 

to intervene timely in this matter. Under these circumstances, 

as it is clear that your organization did not timely intervene durii^ 

the prescribed 10-day posting period, it is concluded that your 

request for intervention was untimely. See Section 202.5(c) of the 

Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Accordingly, your request seeking reversal of the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your request to intervene is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

/ X ' 7 j ' 7 U '

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y . ? 5 s *

W A SH IN G TO N ', D .C. 20210 f £

Mr, Charles J. Hall 

Deputy Director of Personnel 

Deputy of the Army 

Headquarters, Military Traffic 

Management and Terminal Service 

Washington, D. C. 20315

Re: Headquarters, Military Traffic

Management and Terminal Service 

Case No. 22-5343(AP)

Dear Mr. Hall:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director*s Report and 

Findings on Grievability and Arbitrability in the above-named case*

I agree with your contention that the subject grievance is 

not arbitrable insofar as it involves Article XX, Details, and 

Article XVII, Career Program Management. Thus, I find that the 

consideration of these provisions by an arbitrator would require 

the interpretation of certain Department of the Array Regulations 

contrary to the clear proscription in Article XXIII, Section 4 

of the negotiated agreement. However, I disagree with your contention that the instant grievance is not arbitrable insofar as it 

involves Article XVIII, Merit Promotion and Placement, because such 

Article was not cited specifically in the grievance. In this regard,

I note that the grievance herein clearly referred to a violation 

of "merit promotion principles,1’ I also disagree with your 

contention that the issue involving Article XIV, Employee Development, 

should not be referred to arbitration because allegedly such issue 

is only a minor part of the grievance. In this connection, it was 

noted that the grievance clearly alleged that such provision was 

violated because employees, other than the one selected, did not 

receive training and developmental opportunities. Thus, in my view, 

a decision as to whether the Activity violated Article XVIII and 

Article XIV should be resolved through the arbitration process 

provided for in the negotiated agreement as the matters involved 

concern the interpretation and application of the parties* negotiated 

agreement.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievability 

or Arbitrabilityf is denied.

450
Pursuant to Section 205.12 of the Assistant Secretary’s 

Regulations, the parties shall notify the Assistant Regional Director 

for La'oor-Management Services, Labor-Manageraent Services Administration,, U. S. Department of Labor, in writing, within 20 days 

fron the date of this decision as to what steps have been taken to 

comply herewith. The Assistant Regional Director's address is 

Roon 14120, Gateway Building, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 19106,

Sincerely,

Paul J, Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

12-13-74

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c b o f t h b A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Donald Moore 

Vice President,

Local 3217, American Federation of AKH

Government Employees, AFL-CIO flOX

2115 - 66th Avenue 

Oakland, California 94621

Re: United States Department of 

Agriculture,

Pacific Southwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station 

Berkeley, California 

Case No. 70-4254

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in connection with your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's decision finding 

that the grievance in the subject case was not arbitrable under 

the negotiated agreement.

I find that the request for review is procedurally defective 

in that it was filed untimely with the Assistant Secretary. The 

Assistant Regional Director issued his decision in this case on 

September 19, 1974, and, as you were advised therein, a request 

for review of that decision must have been received by the Assistant 

Secretary no later than the close of business October 2, 1974.

Your request for review, mailed October 1, 1974, was, in fact, not 

received in my office until after the October 2, 1974, due date and, 

therefore, it was viewed as having been filed untimely.

Under these circumstances, the merits of the subject case 

have not been considered and your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's decision dismissing 

the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

412
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N , D C .. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

~/k' Mr. Louis P. Poulton

Associate General Counsel

International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers A*\0

Machinists Building

1300 Connecticut Avenue

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Aberdeen Proving Ground

Aberdeen, Maryland

Case No.-22-5U00(CA)

Dear Mr. Poulton:

Your request to withdraw the request for review of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint in the

above-named case has been referred to the undersigned for reply.

The reasons advanced in support of your request to withdraw have been considered carefully, and the request is hereby

granted. Accordingly, the subject case is being returned to the

Assistant Regional Director,for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Louis S. Wallerstein

Director

12-19-74

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON

Ms. Lisa Renee Strax 

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal 453

Employees

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration 

Case No. 71-3009

Dear Ms. Strax:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint filed by Local 1348, National Federation of Federal

Employees, in the above-named case alleging violation of Section

19(a)(1) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted inasmuch as 

a reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established.

Thus, I find that the parties' agreement extending their basic

negotiated agreement, which contained a provision for dues withholding, terminated at the close of the negotiations session held

on April 17, 1974. In this connection, the evidence revealed that

the parties agreed to extend their negotiated agreement, which was

scheduled to expire on June 30, 1973, until the termination of the

mediation phase of negotiations held under the auspices of the

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). Also, it

revealed that the mediation phase of negotiations terminated with

the close of the negotiations session held on April 17, 1974, as

during that session the FMCS indicated that it was terminating its

efforts in the matter and no further negotiations sessions were held

or scheduled between the parties. In these circumstances, and as

Section 21(a) of the Executive Order provides that the privilege of

dues withholding is based on the existence of a withholding agreement,

I find that the expiration of the basic agreement, which contained

the parties' dues withholding agreement, terminated the Activity's

obligation to continue the dues withholding privilege.

413
- 2 -

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint, is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S . D E P A R T M E N T O F LA B O R

O f f ic e o f t h e As s is t a n t se c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON

/a - / ^ ~ 7 V

Mr. Hilton D. McFarland 

President, American Federation of

Government Employees, Local 51, 4 ^ 4

AFL-CIO 

155 Hermann Street 

San Francisco, California 94102

Re: Bureau of the Mint 

U. S, Assay Office 

San Francisco, California 

Case No. 70-4319

Dear Mr. McFarland:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the 

complaint alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1), (2) and (5) 

of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that there is insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable 

basis for the complaint and, consequently, further proceedings in 

this matter are unwarranted. Thus, there is no evidence to support 

your contention that the reassignment of the two union stewards 

was motivated by anti-union considerations or by a desire to Isolate 

such stewards from other employees in the bargaining unit. Regarding the second allegation, the evidence indicates that the foreman*s 

admonition to the steward occurred during a safety meeting and 

after the steward attempted to restrict the foreman from discussing 

matters which the steward viewed as not being related to safety.

In my view, this isolated admonition is insufficient to establish 

that the Complainant was denied appropriate recognition or that 

employees were coerced in the exercise of their rights under the 

Order.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

414
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Cullen Pe Keough 

Assistant Regional Director 

U, S. Department of Labor 

Room 2200 Federal Office Building 

911 Walnut Street 

Kansas City, Mo. 64106

Re: Department of Air Force

Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota 

Case No. 60-3412(RO)

FLRC No. 73A-60

Dear Mr, Keough:

On October 30, 1974, the Federal Labor Relations Council 

(Council) set aside the Assistant Secretary*s denial of the request 

by the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 179 (NFFE) 

to intervene in the above named case and remanded the matter to 

the Assistant Secretary for appropriate action consistent with the 

Council’s decision.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Council disagreed 

with the Assistant Secretary*s determination that the NFFE*s failure 

to serve simultaneously on all interested parties its request to 

intervene, as required by Section 202.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary*s 

Regulations, warranted denial of the intervention request. The 

Council was of the view that the Assistant Secretary*s application 

of his Regulations did not assure that the NFFE’s right to participate 

in tho proceeding was protected, and that the denial of the intervention herein abridged the right of the affected employees to 

select the exclusive representative of their choice. In this connection, the Council noted that the NFFE had complied with all of 

the procedural requirements which were contained in a letter it had 

received from the Area Office and that such letter had made no 

reference to the requirement for simultaneous service of the NFFE*s 

intervention request on all interested parties. Moreover, the Area 

Office had notified the NFfE that it had complied with all of the 

necessary requirements and that its request to intervene was granted 

at a time when the NFFE could have corrected the deficiency in its 

intervention request by serving the other parties with a copy of 

such request. And, further, that the parties had actual notice of 

the NFFE's intervention request as they had received copies of the 

Area Office's letter granting the request to intervene so that the 

service requirement had been met.

DEC 24 1974 

455

In view .of the Council's action setting aside the denial 

of the request to intervene, the instant case should be reopened 

and the h'FFE’s request to intervene granted. Further, the election 

previously held in this matter should be declared void and the 

Certification of Representative issued to the Petitioner, Local 

2228, A.-aerican Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, as a 

result of such election, should be revoked. Thereafter, the 

petition in this matter should be processed in accordance with 

Part 202 of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Latifer

_4_15
December 24, 1974

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G TO N

Mr. Robert J. Gorman

President, National Federation of

Federal Employees, Local 1300

8 East Delaware Place //3R

Chicago, Illinois

Re: General Services Administration

Region 5, Federal Supply Service,

Quality Control Division

Chicago, Illinois

Case No. 52-5716 (RO)

Dear Mr. Gorman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal

of the subject petition filed by the National Federation of Federal

Employees, Local 1300.

Under the circumstances herein, I find that your request

for review raises issues of fact and policy which can be resolved

best on the basis of record testimony. Therefore, I am recommending

the subject case to the Assistant Regional Director for reinstatement of the petition and the issuance of a notice of hearing.

In order that an adequate record may be made at the hearing,

evidence should be adduced concerning whether or not the claimed

employees have been fairly and effectively represented by the

Intervenor, American Federation of Government Employees, Local

2075, AFL-CIO. Further, evidence should be adduced concerning

the appropriateness of the unit sought by the instant petition.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. James T. King, Jr.

Acting Personnel Officer D F P 24 1Q7/1

U. S, Department of Commerce lj/4

Domestic and International Business >4£*7

Administration *xOf

14th t Constitution Ave., N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20230

Re: U. S. Department of Commerce

Domestic and International Business 

Administration, Phoenix District 

Office 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Case No. 72-4749(RA)

Dear Mr. King:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

RA petition filed in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you indicate that you seek an 

election in a unit consisting of a single employee and a determination as to whether Executive Order 11491, as amended, requires 

the Activity to continue to accord recognition to the National 

Federation of Federal Employees, Local 376, (NFFE) as the exclusive 

representative in a single employee unit. In Report on a Ruling of 

the Assistant Secretary, Report No. 44 (copy’enclosed), it was 

concluded that units of more than one employee were contemplated 

by the Order and consequently ...a single employee unit is not 

appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.1’ Under 

these, circumstances, I find, in agreement with the Assistant 

Regional Director, that as the unit Involved herein is inappropriate 

for the purposes of exclusive recognition under the Order, dismissal of the instant petition seeking an election in such unit is 

warranted. I find also, in view of the inappropriateness of the 

unit involved, that the Activity is not required by the Order to 

continue to accord recognition to the NFFE as the exclusive 

representative of such unit.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the instant petition,is 

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J, Fasser, Jr.

Assisi ant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Jack L. Copess 

Secretary-Treasurer 

Hawaii Federal Employees 

'.ietal Trades Council 

825 Bethel Street 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Re: Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 

Case No. 73-573

Dear Mr, Copess:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

complaint in the above-named case alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find 

that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. The 

evidence reveals that an employee, who was being interviewed for 

the second time by one of the Activity’s supervisors in connection 

with an investigation of another supervisor, requested union 

representation prior to answering any of the supervisor's questions. 

The supervisor advised the employee that he could have union 

representation but that such representation would formalize the 

meeting and, in any event, he would have to answer the questions.

In this connection, the supervisor read to the employee the 

Activity's regulation regarding the penalties for concealing 

facts during an investigation.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find 

that the above remarks attributed to the supervisor did not 

establish a reasonable basis for the instant complaint. Thus, 

the supervisor did not deny union representation to the employee 

involved, and the evidence does not establish that the remarks 

in issue were designed to discourage the employee from seeking 

such representation. Further, it does not appear that the remarks 

were motivated by a desire to retaliate against the employee for 

seeking union representation or were based on any other anti-union 

considerations.

Accordingly, and noting also that the employee involved was 

not the object of the supervisor's investigation, your request

DEC 24 1374 

458

- 2 -

for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's 

dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J, Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

DEC 24 1974

Mr. Milton D. McFarland

President, American Federation of

Government Employeesj Local 51,

AFL-CIO

155 Hermann Street

San Francisco, California 94102

Re: Bureau of the Mint

U. S. Assay Office

San Francisco, California

Case No. 70-4320

Dear Mr. McFarland:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint

in the above-named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(2) and (6)

of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that further proceedings are unwarranted in that a reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established. Thus, while I agree with your contention

that the pressroom policies in issue involve working conditions, there is

insufficient evidence to establish that the Activity's March 19, 1974, memorandum enumerating such policies constituted a change in the existing

pressroom policies. Rather, it appears that such memorandum merely reaffirmed and restated existing policies. Under these circumstances, I find

that the Activity was not obligated to meet and confer with the Complainant prior to posting the subject memorandum.

Accordingly, your request for review seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the instant complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

4 5 9

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

January 3, 1975

Mr. Russ Hatfield

President

Federal Employees Metal Trades Council,

Long Beach - AFL-CIO ^ D U '

P. 0. Box 20310

Long Beach, California- 90801

R e : Long Beach Naval Shipyard

Long Beach, California

Case NO. 72-4730

Dear Mr. Hatfield:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your

complaint alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1), (2) and (6) of

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that a

reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established and,

consequently, further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted.

Thus, I find that the statement made by the Activity’s representative,

Jim Minks, did not constitute a violation of the Order. In this

connection, it was noted that the evidence did not establish that

the statement was motivated by anti-union considerations. Nor did

the evidence establish that the conduct in question interfered with,

restrained, or coerced the Activity’s employees in the exercise of

their rights assured under the Order or discouraged membership in

a labor organization by discriminating against its employees in

regard to hire, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of •employment.

Also, I find no basis to support your contention that the Activity’s

conduct in refusing to meet with the Complainant concerning Mink's

statement violated Section 19(a)(6) of the Order. In this regard,

see U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Army Materiel

Command, Automated Logistics Management Systems Agency, A/SLMR No. 211.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

418
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

January 3, 1975

Mr. Gordon N. Kellett

Acting Chief, Civilian Personnel Division

Directorate of Personnel,

Training and Force Development

Headquarters United States Army 4 6 1

Materiel Command

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, Virginia 22304

Re: Department of the Army

U.S. Army Materiel Command

Watervliet Arsenal

Watervliet, New York

Case No. 35-3233(AP)

Dear Mr. Kellett:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal

of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievability

and Arbitrability in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you contend that: (1) the agreement provisions concerning training and arbitration should not be considered

because these provisions were not raised during the processing of the

grievance; (2) the agreement provision regarding training gives the Activity

the absolute right to determine training for employees; (3) the Assistant

Regional Director refused to consider whether the Activity had discretion

concerning the implementation of the Agency directive on race relations/

equal employment opportunity training; and (4) the Activity has sole

responsibility for informing employees of their rights and obligations

under the Equal Employment Opportunity Program pursuant to Chapter 713 of

the Federal Personnel Manual.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with the Assistant

Regional Director, that the subject grievance is arbitrable. Thus, I disagree with your contention that the grievance is not arbitrable because

Article 26, Training and Development, and Article 37, Grievance and Arbitration, cited in the Application, were not alleged specifically during the

processing of the grievance. In this connection, I note that the grievance

involves a dispute concerning compulsory participation in a training program

and the parties disagree as to whether such dispute is subject to the arbitration procedures in Article 37 of the negotiated agreement. Moreover, as

the grievance concerns training, it involves a dispute over the interpretation and application of Article 26 of the Agreement. Also, in my view, the

directive requiring participation in the subject race relations/equal

employment opportunity program was not issued by an appropriate authority

within the meaning of Section 12(a) of the Executive Order and, consequently,

such directive may not vary the terms of the existing negotiated agreement.

In this regard, see Department of the NaVy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding,

Conversion and Repair, Pascagoula, Mississippi, A/SLMR No. 390, in which it

was determined that appropriate authorities under Section 12(a) of the

Executive Order refers only to those authorities outside an agency which are

empowered to issue regulations and policies that are binding on the affected

agency. Further, there appears to be nothing in Chapter 713 of the Federal

Personnel Manual requiring the Activity to use the type of training in

question to inform employees about its equal employment opportunity program.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing considerations, your request for

review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and

Findings on Grievability and Arbitrability, is denied.

Pursuant to Section 203.12 of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations,

the parties shall notify the Assistant Regional Director for Labor-Management

Services, Labor-Management Services Administration, United States Department

of Labor, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this decision as to

what steps have been taken to comply herewith. The Assistant Regional

Director's address is Room 3515, 1515 Broadway, New York, New York 10036.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

419
U .S. DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR

Of f ic e o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON

Mr. Jack L. Copess 

S e c r e t a r y - T r e a s u r e r

Hawaii Federal Employees Metal 4fi2

Trades Council, AFL-CIO 

925 B et hel S t r e e t , Room 210 

H o n o l u l u , Hawa i i 9 6 8 1 3

Re: Department of the Navy

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 

Case No. 73>57^

Dear Mr. Copess:

I h a v e c o n s i d e r e d c a r e f u l l y y o u r r e q u e s t f o r r e v i e w 

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional D ire cto r's 

d is m iss a l of the complaint in the above-named case a l l e g i n g 

v io latio n of Section 19(a)(1) of Executive Order 11491, as 

amended.

I n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e A s s i s t a n t R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r , I 

f i n d t h a t t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h a 

reasonable basis for the complaint and, consequently, 

further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. The 

e v i d e n c e r e v e a l e d t h a t d u r i n g t he c o u r s e o f a d i s c u s s i o n 

o f a p e n d i n g wage s c h e d u l e c o n v e r s i o n , and a f t e r an e m p l o y e e 

e x p r e s s e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t he new wage s c h e d u l e , a 

representative of the A ctivity told the employee that if 

he d i d n o t l i k e h i s j o b , he c o u l d " q u i t . " I n my v i e w , 

t h i s i s o l a t e d s t a t e m e n t does not c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n o f 

any employee rig h t s assured by the Order.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal 

of the A s s i s t a n t Regional D i r e c t o r 's d ism issal of the complaint, is denied.

S i nee re 1y ,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

January 3, 1975

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. James R. Rosa

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government /IfiT

Employees, AFL-CIO

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Social Security Administration

Mid-America Program Center, BRSI

Kansas City, Missouri

Case No. 60-3836 (CA)

Dear Mr. Rosa:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal

of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint in

the above-named case alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director, I find

that a reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established and,

consequently, further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. It is

your contention that the Activity violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of

the Order by its refusal to comply with the Assistant Secretary's

Decision and Order in Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Social Security Administration, Kansas City Payment Center, Bureau of

Retirement and Survivors Insurance, A/SLMR No. 411. The evidence reveals

that the Activity filed a timely petition for review of the Assistant

Secretary's Decision with the Federal Labor Relations Council (Council)

and requested a stay of the remedial order. The above matters currently

are pending before the Council.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with the Acting

Assistant Regional Director, that the matters raised in the subject complaint concern compliance with a remedial order of the Assistant Secretary

and do not involve issues which may be raised under Section 19 of the

Executive Order. With respect to questions concerning compliance with

remedial orders of the Assistant Secretary where requests for stays have

been filed, I have been advised that this matter recently has been raised

with the Council for its consideration by the American Federation of

Government Employees with respect to a petition for review and a stay

420
- 2 -

requested by the Respondent in Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station,

Fallon, Nevada, A/SLMR No. 432, FLRC No. 74A-80.

Based on the foregoing considerations, your request for review, 

seeking reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Hr . F r a n k J ames 

Executive Vice-President 

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1122 

Western Program Center 

P.O. Box 100

San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 0 1

Re: Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare,

Western Program Center,

Social Security Administration 

San Francisco, California 

Case No. 70-4291

Dear Mr. James:

I ha v e c o n s i d e r e d c a r e f u l l y y o u r r e q u e s t f o r r e v i e w 

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional D ire c to r's d i s ­

missal of the complaint in the above-named case, alleging 

v io la t i o n s of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 

1 1 k S 1, as amended.

Un d e r a l l o f t he c i r c u m s t a n c e s , I f i n d , i n a g r e e me n t 

with the A ssistant Regional Director, that further proc e e d i n g s in t h i s m a t t e r a r e u n w a r r a n t e d . T h u s , i n my v i e w , 

the Complainant herein did hot present su fficie n t evidence 

to e s t a b l i s h a r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s f o r the a l l e g a t i o n t h a t the 

assignment of claims authorizers at the Program Center cons t i t u t e d a u n i l a t e r a l c h a n g e i n t erms and c o n d i t i o n s o f 

employment of unit employees. In t hi s regard, see Se ct io n 

203.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations which 

provides that the Complainant shall bear the burden of 

proof at all stages of the proceeding regarding matters 

alleged in the complaint.

A c c o r d i n g l y , as a r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s f o r the c o m p l a i n t 

has not been established In this matter, your request for 

review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional D irector's 

dismissal of your complaint, Is denied.

1

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s is t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

421
January 23, 1975

Mr. Michael M. Goldman

Assistant Counsel

National Treasury Employees Union A C K

1730 K Street, N.- W.

Suite 1101

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Internal Revenue Service District,

Columbia, South Carolina

Case Wo. &0-5339(CA)

Dear Mr. Goldman:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint in the above-named case, alleging violation of Section

19(a)(1), (2) and (6 ) of Executive Order IIU9 1 , as amendedIn agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that a reasonable basis for the complaint under Section 19(a)(2)

of the Order has not been established. Thus, I find that, standing

alone, the Respondent's alleged threat to disclose personal information about employee McManus if she assisted in a grievance matter

does not constitute discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure,

promotion or other conditions of employment which would encourage

or discourage membership in a labor organization. I am persuaded,

however, that a reasonable basis for the complaint has been

established under Section 19(a)(1) and (6 ) of the Order based on

the alleged threat to McManus to prevent her from testifying in a

grievance proceeding, and the alleged warning not to go to management officials or a union representative about the matter.

As I am persuaded that sufficient evidence has been presented

in the instant case to establish a reasonable basis for the complaint

under Section 1 9 (a)(1 ) and (6 ) of the Order, your request for review

in this regard is granted and the case is remanded to the Assistant

Regional Director for reinstatement of the complaint, insofar as it

alleges violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (6 ), and for issuance of

a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f ic e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h f A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y ft, A

WASHINGTON', D.C. 20210 ” ’ ' ~ '

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Thomas Angelo

Assistant Counsel vfCC

National Treasury Employees Union ‘i OO

1730 K Street, N. V/t Suite 1101 

V/ashington, D. C. 20006

Re: U. S. Civil Service Commission 

Appeals Review Board 

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-S519(CA)

Dear Mr. Angelo:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

the complaint in the above-named case, alleging violation of Section 

19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

v.’ith respect to the merits, I find in agreement with the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director, that further proceedings on the instant 

complaint are unwarranted. Thus, under the circumstances, I find 

that the statement at issue, contained in the Respondent Board's 

decision, did not, standing alone, interfere with, restrain, or coerce 

employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Order. Nor, in 

my view, did such statement discourage membership in a labor organization by discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure, promotion, or 

other conditions of employment.

With respect to the additional matters raised in the Respondent's 

"response” to the request for'review, seeking reversal of the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director's finding that the Complainant had 

standing to file the instant unfair labor practice complaint, it Ivas 

noted that Section 203.7(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations 

provides, in effcct, that only a complainant can file a request for 

review of a dismissal action by an Assistant Regional Director.

Moreover, oven assuming that the Respondent had standing to file a 

request for review in the particular circumstances of this case, the 

above noted Section of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations requires 

also that a request for review be filed with the Assistant Secretary 

within ten days of service of the Assistant Regional Director's action. 

In the instant case, the Respondent did not file a timely request for 

review concerning the Acting Assistant Regional Director's finding, 

nor did it request an extension of time in which to file a request

422
review. Rather, the Respondent sought only to file a "response’’ 

the Cc~plainant‘s request for review. Under these circimstanccs, 

ind that the additional matters raised in the Respondent's 

sponse" to the request for review, seeking reversal of a finding 

the Acting Assistant Regional Director, cannot-be considered.

Accordingly, as a reasonable basis for the subject complaint 

not been established, your request for review, seeking reversal 

the Acting Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal ox the complaint, 

denied.

Sincerely,

J

Paul J. Fasser, Jr* 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

467

Ro: U. S. Department of the Air Force

Grand Forks Air Force Base,

North Dakota

Case No. 60-3747(110)

Dear Mr. Peer:

X have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your

RO petition in the above-named case.

I find that the instant case presents factual issues which

can be resolved best on the basis of evidence adduced at a hearing.

Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Assistant Regional

Director for reinstatement of the petition and for the issuance

of a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

William B. Peer, Esq.

Barr and Peer

1101 - i7th Street, N. ff.

Vashington, D. C. 20036

Paul J „ Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
O f f i c e o f t h b A s s s s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

JAN 30 1975

Mr. George E. Bowles 

Grand Lodge Representative

International Association of Machinists 468

and Aerospace Workers 

1347 River Street, Room 4 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96817

Re: U. S. Army Engineer

Division, Pacific Ocean I

Ft. Armstrong 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

Case No. 73-562

Dear Mr. Bowles:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal 

of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the objections to the 

election filed by the Hawaii Federal Lodge 1998, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, and based on his 

reasoning, I find that the IAM failed to meet its prescribed burden of 

proof in support of its objections and that, consequently, further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul. J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Mr. L. W. Berglund, Jr.

Comander, U. S. Navy,

Assistant Naval Plant Representative 4 6 9

Naval Air Systems Command

Naval Plant Representative Office

3ethpage, New York 11714

Re: Department of the Navy

Naval Air Systems Command 

Bethpage, New York 

Case No. 30-5645

Dear Commander Berglund:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report, and Findings 

on Grievability in the above-named case.

The essence of your position is that the grievance filed 

by Local 2693, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 

(AFGS) on behalf of Harvey A. Studen, a probationary employee, is 

not grievable under the terms of the current negotiated agreement 

between the Activity and the AFGE because, allegedly, probationary 

employees have no rights under the agreement. Also, you contend 

that the instant grievance is barred because the issues in such 

grievance were litigated previously in an appeal by Studen to 

the Civil Service Commission,

In my view, the instant grievance involves a matter subject 

to the grievance procedure contained in the parties' negotiated 

agreement. Thus, there is no indication in the agreement that 

probationary employees are not covered by Article XI (Performance 

Evaluation) and Article XVII (Training) of the agreement. Nor 

is there any indication that they have no right to process grievances concerning alleged violations of the agreement through the 

negotiated grievance procedure. Further, ii» my view, the issues 

presented in the instant grievance differ from the physical handicap 

issues involved in the previous appeal to the Civil Service Commission, 

whose jurisdiction is limited in the case of adverse actions against 

probationary employees, and, consequently, I find that the grievance 

is not barred by such appeal.

Accordingly, as the matters in dispute involve the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the parties* 

negotiated agreement, your request for review, seeking reversal of

U.S. DE P AR TM E N T OF LABOR

O n i c r . o f t i j k A s s i s t a n t S c c h k t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

424
;

the Assistant Regional Director’s Report and Findings on Grievability, 

is denied.

Pursuant to Section 205,12 of the Assistant Secretary's 

Regulations, the parties shall notify the Assistant Regional Director 

for Labor-Management Services, Labor-Management Services Administration, United States Department of Labor, in writing, within 20 

days Iron the date of this decision as to what steps have been taken 

to comply herewith. The Assistant Regional Director's address is 

Ro o!3 3515, 1515 3roadway, New York, New York 10036.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

—

/ - J o - 7-J

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y 1

WASHINGTON, D.c. 20210 \ [ijrj ^

Mr. John Helm

Staff Attorney A ryf)

National Federation of Federal Employees ^

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C, 20006

Re: U.S. Department of Health, Education and 

Welfare, Social Security Administration 

Grand Rapids, Michigan 

Case No. 52-557S(RO)

Dear Mr. Helm:

X have considered carefully your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's denial of 

intervention by the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) 

in the above-named case.

The evidence establishes that the Notice of Petition in the 

instant case was posted on August 16, 1974, and that the terminal 

date for intervention was, therefore, August 26, 1974. Your request 

to intervene was untimely filed in that it was dated August 27, and 

received by the Area Office on August 28, 1974.

In your request for review, you note that the Petitioner, 

American Federation of Government Employees, local No. 3272,

AFL-CIO (AFGE), failed to name the NFFE as the incumbent labor 

organization on the instant petition, that the NFFE sought information 

from the Department of Labor as soon as it became aware of the subject petition, and that NFFE did not receive a copy of the petition 

from the Department of Labor until August 26, 1974. Also, you 

allege that the posting of the Notice of Petition should not be 

held to constitute notice to the NFFE because of alleged collusion 

between the president of the NFFE Local involved and the AFGE.

In my view, the above noted contentions by the NFFE do not 

constitute good cause for extending the time period within which 

intervention must be filed. Rather, in agreement with the Acting 

Assistant Regional Director, I find that the posting of the prescribed 

Notice of Petition constituted sufficient notice to afford all 

interested parties the opportunity to Intervene timely in this matter. 

Moreover, it was noted that the evidence establishes that the NFEE 

was aware of the filing of the instant petition prior to the posting

425
- 2 -

of the Notice of Petition. Thus, the NFFE, by letter dated 

August 14, 1974, made a request for a copy of the instant petition 

to the Chicago Area Office but made no mention in its letter of 

any intention regarding intervention. Under these circumstances, 

and as it is clear that the NFFE did not timely intervene during 

the prescribed 10-day posting period, it is concluded that your 

request for intervention was untimely* See, in this regard, Section 

202.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Acting Assistant Regional Director's denial of the NFFE's request to 

intervene, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O r n c i i o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C, :02U)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

/

Mr, Howard ToyDirector of Personnel A J i

Office of Economic Opportunity

1200 - 19th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20506

Re: Office of Economic Opportunity

Case No. 22-5512(AP)

Dear Mr. Toy:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's Report and 

Findings on Grlevabillty or Arbitrability in the above-named ~case 

wherein he found that the Issues raised in the subject grievance 

were grievable under the terms of the parties' negotiated agreenent and the provisions of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In your request for review, you assert, in essence, that 

the delegation of authority order in question was not a "new 

regulation” and did not constitute a substantive change in an 

existing regulation within the meaning of Article 3, Section 6 of 

the negotiated agreement between the Office of Economic Opportunity 

(Agency - Applicant) and Local 2677, National Council of OEO Locals, 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE). As 

the Agency Director's power to delegate authority is vested in the 

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, and, in this case, 

in the rules of the Federal Labor Relations Council (FLRC), you 

maintain that the consultation requirements of Article 3, Section

6 of the agreement do not apply to the Issuance of such a delegation 

of authority. Moreover, you contend that the Agency Director's 

decision to delegate authority and to determine to whom such 

authority should be delegated were both reserved management rights 

under Section 12(b) of the Order.

In agreement with your contention, I find that the Instant 

grievance regarding whether or not the Agency has complied with 

Article 3, Section 6 of the negotiated agreement through the 

issuance of the delegation of authority order in question is 

patently not a matter subject to the contractual grievance-arbitration 

procedure. In reaching this result, it was noted that Articlc 3, 

Section 6 of the agreement is limited to those matters affecting

426
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Ralph J. McElfresh, Jr.

President

International Federation of Professional 4 7 7

and Technical Engineers H i /

1126 - 16th Street, N. W., Suite 200

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Case No. 22-5532(CA)

Dear Mr. EcElfresh:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint in the above-captioned case alleging violation of

Section 19(a)(2), (5) and (6 ) of Executive Order 11^91, as

amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director and based

on his reasoning, I find that dismissal of the instant complaint

is warranted in that a reasonable basis for the complaint has

not been established.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint,

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

2-24-75

Richard Remmes, General Counsel

National Association of Government

Employees

285 Dorchester Avenue

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

478

Re: U. S. Public Health Hospital

Brighton, Massachusetts

Case No. 31-8606(CA)

Dear Mr. Remmes:

I have considered carefully your request for review

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director,

and based upon his reasoning, I find that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish a reasonable basis for

the instant complaint. Accordingly, your request for review,

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

431
■))></h r

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

V_r. Paul ?.. Woodman

President, American Federation of A ^ Q

Government Employees, Local 2202 e±f<J

P. 0 . Bcz k33o

Pasadena., California 91106

R e : Internal Revenue Service

Los Angeles District

Los Angeles, California

Case No. 72-1*736

Dear Mr. Woodman:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the

objections to election, filed by the American Federation of

•jovemnent Employees, Local 2202, in the above-named case.

In agreenent with the Assistant Regional Director and based

on his reasoning, I find the dismissal of the objections in this

natter vas warranted. Accordingly, your request for review,

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and

Findings on Objections, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O ; f ic e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

■VAiHINGTOX. D.C. 20210 % J S t f 3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

l:‘. "-ecrje Tilton >

As=c-:i=t= C-eneral Counsel '

federation of'Federal

1 p,,-aos

1737’H Street, N. W. *' '

nashington, D. C. 20006

480

Re: Jtessachusetts Army National Guard

Boston, Massachusetts

Case No. 31-8853(RO)

Dear Mr. Tilton:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s denial of your

notion to dismiss the petition filed by the National Association

of Gcvernnent Employees, Local Rl-151*, in the above-named case.

ITo provision is made for filing a request for review of an

Assistant Regional Director's action in denying a motion to

dismiss a petition. See, in this regard, Report on a Decision

of tie Assistant Secretary, Report Ho. 8 (copy enclosed.)

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of

the Assistant Regional Director's action in this matter, is

denisd.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

432
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

February 28, 1975

Mr. James Rosa

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government 4)5*3

Employees, AFL-CIO *xOA

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Headquarters, Array and Air Force

Exchange Service

Ohio Valley Exchange Region

Case No. 50-11136(CA)

Dear Mr. Rosa:

I have considered carefully your request for review,

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal

of the complaint in the above-named case, alleging violations of

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11493., as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I

find that there is insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable

basis for the instant complaint. Thus, no evidence was presented

by the Complainant that the negotiated agreement in question was

signed, or was requested to be signed, prior to the filing of the

decertification petition in Case No. 50-11122(DR), or that the

Respondent refused to sign the agreement prior to the filing of

such petition. Rather, it is alleged merely that an initialed

copy of the agreement exists which you contend you will present

at a later date. In this latter regard, see Section 203.5(c) of

the Assistant Secretary's Regulations which provides, in part, that,

"The Complainant shall bear the burden of proof at all stages of

the proceedings, regarding matters alleged in its complaint. . ."

(emphasis added).

Under these circumstances, as there is no evidence that

the agreement in question was signed, or was requested to be signed,

or that the Respondent refused to sign the agreement, prior to the

filing of the decertification petition and as, in my view, the

filing of the decertification petition in Case No. 50-11122(DR)

raised a valid question concerning representation, I find that the

Respondent was not obligated to comply with your request to sign

the agreement during the pendency of such petition. Cf. Department

of the Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Florida,

A/SLMR No. 155.

Accordingly, and noting also that the negotiated

agreement herein was not ratified by the local union membership

until after the filing of the above-noted decertification

petition, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

' Assistant Secretary of Labor

433
£ -3.%'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

^ O f f i c e o f . t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Arthur G. Palman

Regional Personnel Officer

General Services Administration, >«fiO

Region 3

7th & D Streets, S. Jtf.

Washington, D. C. 20407

Be: General Services Administration

Region 3

Case No. 22-5530(AP)

Dear Mr. Pal m a n :

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings

on Grievability or Arbitrability in the above-named case.

Iii your request for review, you contend that there was no

violation of the provisions of the negotiated agreement in issue

and, further, that only two of the provisions cited in connection

with the grievance are applicable to the matter, in addition,

y o u contend that the agreement does not require consultation with

the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2151 on

individual reassignments, that any assignments which have occurred

were made consistent with the terms of the negotiated agreement

and Executive Order 11*1-91, as amended, and that the matter is not

grievable or arbitrable.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, and based

on his reasoning, I find that the grievance herein is subject to

the negotiated grievance and’arbitration procedures in the parties*

negotiated agreement. Thus, in my view, the evidence establishes

that the issues in dispute involve the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the agreement and that the agreement

provides a means by which such disputes may be resolved. I therefore,

conclude that it will effectuate the purposes of the Order for the

parties to resolve the instant dispute through their negotiated

procedures.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's- Report arid-Findings on Grievability.

is denied.

- 2 -

Pursuant to Section 205.12 of the Assistant Secretary's

Regulations, the parties shall notify the Assistant Regional

Director for Labor-Management Services, Labor-Management

Services Administration, United States Department of Labor,

ir. writing, within 20 days from the date of this decision as

to what steps have been taken to comply herewith. The Assistant

Regional Director’s address is Room l1* 120, Gateway Building,

3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

434
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

February 28, 1975

Mr. Thomas J. O'Rourke

Office of Chief Counsel

General. Legal .Services Division

Room 4134, IRS Building

1111 Constitution Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20224

Re: Internal Revenue Service

Omaha District Office

Case No. 60-3722(G&A)

Dear Mr. O'Rourke:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and

Findings on Arbitrability in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that the instant grievances over entitlement to reimbursement

for per diem and travel expenses involve matters concerning the

interpretation and application of Article 27 of the parties'

negotiated agreement and, therefore, are subject to arbitration

under such agreement. In reaching this conclusion, I reject

your contention that the Budget and Accounting Act constitutes a

statutory appeals procedure within the meaning of Section 13(a)

of the Order which would preclude a finding of arbitrability in

this matter. Thus, in my view, a statutory appeals procedure is

one which establishes a formalized procedure for considering appeals.

On the other hand, the Budget and Accounting Act merely provides

machinery for claims settlement or adjudication. In this regard,

it was noted that the Comptroller General has upheld binding arbitration awards involving the payment of money based on the view

that such awards become nondiscretionary agency policies when

consistent with law, regulation and the Order. See e.g., Matter

of National Labor Relations Board employee, File B-180010,

Comptroller General decision issued October 31, 1974. In this

latter regard, the Comptroller General has stated that when there

is doubt as to whether an award may be properly implemented, a

decision from the Federal Labor Relations Council or from the

Comptroller General should be sought.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Arbitrability,

is denied.

-2-

Pursuant to Section 205.12 of the Assistant Secretary's

Regulations, the parties shall notify the Assistant Regional

Director for Labor-Management Services Administration, U. S.

Department of Labor, in writing, within 20 days from the date of

this decision as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.

The Assistant Regional Director's address is Room 2200, 911 Walnut

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

435
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N '

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Val -J. Kozak

Director, Field Operations

National Federation of Federal A R A

Employees

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Federal Aviation Administration

Sector 19 ,

Greer, South Carolina

Case No. U0-5858(R0)

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the

RO petition filed in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that the dismissal of the subject cross-petition is warranted

on the basis that such petition was not timely filed in

accordance with Section 202.5(b) of the Assistant Secretary's

Regulations and that there was insufficient evidence to

establish good cause for extending the prescribed posting

period cf the initial petition filed in Case No. 22-555*+(RO)

ar.d costed at the Activity on October 2k, 197*+. See, in this

regard, U. S. Marshals Service, District of Columbia, FLRC

llo. 7UA-35.

Accordingly, your request for reviev, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the subject petition,

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C. 20210

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

y.r. Val J. Kozak

Director, Field Operations

ITational Federation of Federal j4 Q C

Employees *100

1757 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Federal Aviation Administration

Sector 31)

Montgomery, Alabama

Case No. Uo -5859(RO)

Dear Mr. Kozak:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the

HO petition filed in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that the dismissal of the subject cross-petition is warranted

cn the basis that such petition was not timely filed in accordance

vith Section 202.5(b) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations

and that there was insufficient evidence to establish good cause

for extending the prescribed posting period of the initial petition

filed in Case No. 22-555^(RO) and posted at the Activity on

October 25, 197^- See, in this regard, U. S. Marshals Service,

District of Columbia, FLRC No. 7^A-35*

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the subject petition,

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

436
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Slf/7r

V.t . Stanley Q. Lyman

National Vice President

jational Association of Government

Employees

2o5 Dorchester Avenue

Boston, Massachusetts 02127

Re: Veterans Administration Hospital

Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

Case No. 31-8567(RO)

Dear Mr. Lyman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Report and Findings on Objections of the Assistant

Regional Director in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director and based

on his reasoning, I find that your objections are without merit.

With respect to your allegations of misconduct in the polling

area, it was noted particularly that the employee statements

offered in support of such allegations were deficient in several

respects. Thus, the statements did not establish the identity

of the alleged solicitors, nor did they indicate the time or

place of the alleged improper conduct with specificity. Under

these circumstances, I find that you have failed to meet the

burden of proof in support of your objections as required in

Section 202.20(b) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Directors Report and Findings on Objections,

is denied.

Sincerely,

486

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

3-7-75

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Stephen E. Whitehead 

President

Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees AWJ

Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO *

Building 402, Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, Virginia 23709

Re: U. S. Department of Navy 

Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

Portsmouth, Virginia 

Case No. 22-5387(CA)

Dear Mr. Whitehead:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

the complaint filed in the above-named case.

It is concluded that, under all of the circumstances, a reasonable basis for the instant 19(a)(2) complaint was established. 

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the dismissal of your complaint, is granted and the Assistant Regional 

Director is directed to reinstate the complaint and absent settlement, to issue a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.- 

Assistant Secretary of Labor
Mr. Wilson R. Hart

Chief, Equal Opportunity and

Labor Relations Division

Directorate of Civilian Personnel *10 0

Headquarters, Cameron Station

Alexandria, Virginia 22311*

Re: Defense Supply Agency

Defense Construction Supply Center

Case No. 53-7387(AR)

Dear Mr. Hart:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings

on Arbitrability in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Assistant

Regional Director erred in finding subject to arbitration the

grievance relating to employee Peterson's suspension. You base

your contention, that the grievance is not subject to arbitration

on the fact that the Board of Appeals and Review (BAR) of the

Civil Service.Commission affirmed the suspension on its merits.

The BAR acted in this matter pursuant to its jurisdiction to

review the sufficiency of an agency's reasons for suspending an

employee who is the subject of an adverse action. In view of the

jurisdiction of the BAR with respect to the suspension action, I

find that further processing of the grievance under the negotiated

agreement is precluded under Section 13(a) of Executive Order

11*191, as amended, as the matter involved is covered by a statutory

appeals procedure. Accordingly, the finding of the Assistant

Regional Director that the subject grievance is arbitrable is

reversed, and the Application is hereby dismissed.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O p f i c b o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S b c r b t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

/

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O r n c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Michael J. Riselli

General Counsel

National Association of Government ilftQ

Employees

13Ul G Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

R e : Department of the Army

Rock Island Arsenal Headquarters

U. S. Army Armament Command

Rock Island, Illinois

Case No. 50-11059(R0)

Dear Mr. Riselli:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the.

objection to the election filed by the National Association of

Government Employees, Local R7-39, in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, and basedon his reasoning, I find no merit to the objection in this matter.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objection,

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

438
3-27-75

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o r t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASHINGTON

Mr. Lee A. Holder

P. 0. Box 629

Oak Harbor, Washington 98277

Re: U. S. Naval Air Station, North Island

San Diego, California

Case No. 71-3033(CA)

Dear Mr. Holder:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal

of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint in the

above-named case, alleging violation of Section 19(a)(1), (2) and (4) of

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that the

complaint was not filed timely pursuant to Section 203.2 of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary. Thus, as he noted, the incidents alleged to constitute unfair labor practices occurred on or before May 3,

1973. The charge in this matter was dated July 8 , 1974, and the complaint was dated September 26, 1974.

In your request for review, among other things, you allege that the

Activity denied you an opportunity to file a timely unfair labor practice complaint due to procedural delays on your grievance concerning a

cancellation of home leave and your transfer to the State of Washington.

I find that these contentions do not warrant a contrary result in this

matter. Moreover, it should be noted that Section 19(d) of the Order

precludes the raising of issues as unfair labor practices where, as here,

the issues can be raised under an appeals procedure or have been raised

previously under a grievance procedure.

Accordingly, under all of these circumstances, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal

of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

March 27, 1975

Mr. Gary B. Landsman

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government j

Employees, AFL-CIO ^ ^

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: General Services Administration

Region 2

New York, New York

Case No. 30-5109

Dear Mr. Landsman:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking reversal

of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections in the

above named case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Assistant Regional

Director's decision to issue a Notice of Hearing should be reversed because

the evidence adduced in support of the objection involved does not establish

a reasonable basis for a hearing; the objection was not served in accordance

with the Assistant Secretary's Regulations; and the Area Administrator failed

to conduct a proper investigation in the matter. In addition, you request

that a certification of representative be issued by the Area Administrator

for the professional and nonprofessional employees in Groups (b) and (c) on

the grounds that the objection in issue involves only Group (a) and that the

employees in Groups (b) and (c) should not be denied exclusive representation

pending the final disposition of such objection.

In accordance with Section 202.20(f) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations, I find that the Assistant Regional Director's decision to issue the

instant notice of hearing is not subject to review. Also noting that it

appears that the objection herein was filed timely with the Area Office and

served on the National Office of the Petitioner, American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and the absence of any evidence that the

Activity was not served properly, I find that the matters raised in your

request for review do not warrant reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's

determination that the instant objection was filed in accordance with the

Assistant Secretary's Regulations. Moreover, I find that the evidence does

not establish that the Area Administrator failed to conduct a proper investigation in this matter.

439
-2-

Finally, as the instant objection involves only Group (a), and the final

outcome of the election in Group (a) cannot affect the results of the election

in Groups (b) and (c), I agree that the employees in Groups (b) and (c) should

not be denied exclusive representation pending the outcome of the election in

Group (a). Therefore, I shall direct the Assistant Regional Director to cause

the Area Administrator to issue a certification of representative in accordance

with Section 202.20(a) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations for the

professional and nonprofessional employees in Groups (b) and (c). Moreover,

should the final disposition of the election in Group (a) result in the

employees in Group (a) exercising their option to be included in Group (c),

the Area Administrator should issue an appropriate amendment to such certification of representative.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant'

Regional Director’s Report and Findings on Objections, is denied. However,

the Assistant Regional Director is directed to cause the Area Administrator

to issue a certification of representative for the employees in Groups (b)

and (c).

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

March 28, 1975

Mr. James B. Rhoads

Archivist of the United States

National Archives and Records A Q O

Service

General Services Administration

Washington, D. C. 20408

Re: National Archives and Records Service

General Services Administration

Washington, D. C.

Case No. 22-5713(AP)

Dear Mr. Rhoads:

This is in connection with your request for review in the

subject case and your request that the time period in which to

file the request for review be extended.

I find that both your request for review and your request

for an extension of time are procedurally defective in that such

requests were filed untimely with the Assistant Secretary.

Regarding the request for review, the Acting Assistant Regional

Director issued his decision in this matter on January 29, 1975,

and, as you were advised therein, a request for review of that

decision must have been received by the Assistant Secretary no

later than the close of business February 11, 1975. Your request

for review was, in fact, not received by my office until February 13,

1975, two days after the request for review in this matter was due

and, therefore, it was viewed as having been filed untimely.

As to your request for an extension of time in which to file

the request for review, Sections 205.6(b) and 202.6(d) of the

Assistant Secretary's Regulations require that, "Requests for

an extension of time shall be in writing and received by the

Assistant Secretary not later than three (3) days before the date

the request for review is due." (Emphasis added). As your request

was received on February 13, 1975, two days after the request for

review in this matter was due, it also is untimely.

Under these circumstances, and noting that the matters raised

in your requests do not, in my view, warrant a contrary result,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O p f ic k o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

440
-2-

the merits of the subject case have not been considered and your 

request for review, seeking reversal of the Acting Assistant 

Regional Director’s Report and Findings on Grievability or 

Arbitrability, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

-3

Marvin T. Harmatz, Esq. AQ'X

National Labor Relations Board *1^0

721 - 19th Street, Room 260

Denver, Colorado 80202

R e : National Labor Relations Board

Denver, Colorado Regional Office

and

National Labor Relations Board

Case Ho. 6l-2289(CA)

Dear Mr. Harmatz:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's partial

dismissal of the subject complaint filed by the National Labor

Relations Board, Local Union 27 alleging violations of Section

19(a)(1), (2), (U) and (6 ) of Executive Order 11U91, as amended,

by the National Labor Relations Board and National Labor Relations

Board, Region 27 (Respondent).

In agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director and

based on his reasoning, I find that a reasonable basis has not

been established for allegations 3> 7> 8 , 9> 1 0 , 1 6 , 17, 18

and 19 and for the 1 9 (a)(6 ) portions of allegations 1 , 6 , 9 > and

20 of the complaint and, consequently, further proceedings on such

allegations are unwarranted. However, under all of the circumstances,

I find that a reasonable basis exists for the 1 9 (a)(1 ) and (2 )

portions of allegation 6 in the complaint concerning the failure of

the Respondent to timely reevaluate Field Examiner Hjelle.

Accordingly, the request for review, seeking reversal of the

dismissal of certain allegations in the complaint, is denied

except for the 1 9 (a)(1 ) and (2 ) portions of allegation 6 concerning

the failure of the Respondent to timely reevaluate Field Examiner

Hjelle. In this latter regard, the Assistant Regional Director is

directed to reinstate such allegation and, absent settlement, to

issue a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

441
Mr. -Joe C. Wilson

national Vice President

National Association of Government y4Q/4

Employees, Independent

33CO v.'est Olive Avenue, Suite A

Burbank, California 91505

Re: U.S. Department of Army

U.S. Army Air Defense Center

ana Fort Bliss

Fort Bliss, Texas

Case Ko. 63-U989(RO)

Dear Mr. Wilson:

I have considered carefully ycur request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

objections to the election in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that dismissal of the objections in this matter is warranted.

Thus, with respect to objection 1, I find that the alleged

telephone call by an employee to urge another employee as to

hov: to cast his vote did not constitute objectionable conduct.

In this regard, it was noted parti:ularly that there is no

evidence or suggestion of Activity involvement or support of

such conduct. As to objection 2, it was noted that the Activity

uiade a bona fide offer to correct the erroneous bulletin and

that, in any event, the NAGE had sufficient time prior to the

eleotion to apprise the voters and correct any error involved.

I also find insufficient evidence to support your contention

that an observer engaged in misconduct in the polling area during

the balloting. See, in this regari, Section 202.20(b) of the

Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Under these circumstances, I conclude, in agreement with

the Assistant Regional Director, that the instant objections

are without merit and, accordingly, your request for review is

denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Mr. Gary B. Landsman

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government . q r

Employees, AFL-CIO Q J O

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: St. Lawrance Seaway Development

Corporation

Mapsena, New .York

Case No. 35-32**8 (CA)

Dear Mr. Landsman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint filed by the American Federation of Government Employees,

AFL-CIO (AFGE) in the above-named case, alleging violations of

Section 19(a)(1), (5 ) and (6 ) of Executive Order 11*+91> as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with the

Assistant Regional Director, that a reasonable basis for the instaht

complaint was not established. In reaching this determination,

I find that the AFGE didtnot present sufficient evidence to show

that the Activity unilaterally excluded certain employees from the

bargaining unit. Thus, the evidence establishes that the Activity's

list of "excepted positions" was provided at the request of the

AFGE and in compliance with Section 1 of the parties' negotiated

agreement. In my view, if the AFGE did not agree with some or all

of the "excepted positions" listed by the Activity, the appropriate

vehicle for resolving any disputed position would have been the

filing of a petition for clarification of unit.

Accordingly, as a reasonable basis for the complaint has not

been established in this matter, your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c b o p t h b A s s i s t a n t S b c r b t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N ,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

442
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 3, 1975

Mr. Rocco C. DeMarco

Assistant Regional Director, LMSA

U. S. Department of Labor

Room 1033-B, Federal Office Building

230 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Re: Department of the Navy

Naval Ammunition Depot

Crane, Indiana

Case No. 50-9667

FLRC No. 73A-60

Dear Mr. DeMarco:

On February 7, 1975, the Federal Labor Relations Council (Council)

set aside the Assistant Secretary’s finding that the grievance in the

above case was on a matter subject to the negotiated grievance procedure

and remanded the case to the Assistant Secretary for appropriate action

consistent with the Council's decision.

The Council found that in reaching his decision in the matter the

Assistant Secretary failed to make the "necessary determinations" and

did not use the proper standard for determining whether the instant

grievance was subject to the negotiated grievance procedure. The

Council concluded that where there is a question as to whether a grievance

is on a matter for which a statutory appeal procedure exists, the

Assistant Secretary must decide such question, considering any relevant

laws or regulations in reaching his decision. Also, the Council concluded

that where there is a question as to whether the grievance is on a matter

subject to the negotiated grievance procedure, such question must be

decided by the Assistant Secretary, as an arbitrator would if the

question were referred to him. The Council noted that in reaching such

a decision, the Assistant Secretary should consider the relevant agreement provisions in the light of related statutory provisions, the Order

and regulations. The Council noted also that the Assistant Secretary

should give consideration in his decision to evidence and arguments

concerning the intent and past practice of the parties to the agreement

and any special meaning which particular phrases in the agreement may

have in the Federal sector.

-2-

Under all of the circumstances, including the Council’s rationale

in the subject case, the contentions of the parties, and the evidence

presented previously, it is concluded that the instant grievance*is

not a matter for which a statutory appeal procedure exists. In this

connection, it is noted that Chapter 315 of the Federal Personnel

Manual provides certain grounds upon which a probationary employee may

appeal his termination and none of these grounds are involved in the

instant grievance. It is also noted that while the Activity claimed

that the probationary employee herein could appeal the circumstances

surrounding his termination through the appeal procedure, no contention

was made that the matters raised in the instant grievance may be raised

under such appeal procedure.

Regarding the issue as to whether the instant grievance is on a

matter subject to the negotiated grievance procedure, it was concluded

that prior to a final disposition of the issue, the parties should be

afforded the opportunity to present any additional evidence and

arguments they may have concerning whether the agreement provisions in

issue encompass probationary employees. In this connection, any additional

evidence and arguments presented should include, but not be limited to,

whether the parties intended Article XX (Acceptable Level of Competence)

of their agreement to cover probationary employees; whether by past

practice probationary employees have been covered by any provisions in

the agreement; whether the special meaning of "acceptable level of

competence” in the Federal sector is applicable to the instant agreement;

and any other matters concerning the relationship between the agreement

in question and laws, regulations, and the Order, which the parties

believe will aid in the resolution of the subject issue.

Accordingly, it was concluded that the instant case should be remanded

to the Assistant Regional Director for additional investigation and for

issuance of a notice of hearing or an appropriate Report and Findings

in accordance with Part 205 of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

443
O p f ic b o f t h b As s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH I N O T O N ___

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Richard L. Robertson

Chief Steward

Local 57U

International Brotherhood of j q n

Electrical Workers

632 Fifth Street

Bremerton, Washington 98310

R e : Puget Sound Naval Shipyard

Bremerton, Washington

Case No. 71-32*+6

Dear Mr. Robertson:

This is in connection with your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's finding that the

subject complaint filed in the above-named case was untimely.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that the complaint is procedurally defective in that it was

filed untimely. Thus, the alleged unfair.labor practice occurred

on March 20,’ 197b, more, than six months prior to the date the

pre-complaint charge was filed and more than nine months prior

to the date the subject complaint was filed. Under these

circumstances, I find that the pre-complaint charge and the

complaint herein did not meet the timeliness requirements of

Section 203.2(a)(2) and 203.2(b)(3), respectively, of the

Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Accordingly, the merits of the subject case have not been

considered and your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's decision dismissing the complaipt,

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

ij _ > ^ - J S'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Herbert Cahn

President, National Federation of

Federal Employees, Local kj6 * w O

P. 0. Box 20k .

Little Silver, New Jersey 07739

Re: U. S. Army Electronics Command

Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey

Case No.. 32-3673(CA)

Dear Mr. Cahn:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

coaplaint filed in the above-named case, alleging violations of

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of Executive Order 11U91, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that a reasonable basis

for the instant complaint has been established. Accordingly,

your request for review is granted and the case is remanded to

the Assistant Regional Director who is directed to reinstate

the complaint and, absent settlement, to issue a notice of hearing

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

444
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D .C . 20210

</- -t 7. - y j -

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Leonard Spear

Law Offices

Meranze, Katz, Spear and Wilderman

21st Floor

Lewis Tower Building

N. E. Cor. 15th & Locust Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

R e : Pennsylvania Army and Air National

Guard

Case No. 20-l+51»9(CA)

Dear M r ..Spear:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1), (2), (5 ) and

(6 ) of Executive Order 11^91, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, and based

on his reasoning, I find that a reasonable basis for the complaint

has not been established and that, consequently, further proceedings

in this matter are unwarranted. Accordingly, your request for

review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's

dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

499

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

4-22-75

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Michael Sussman

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal **00

Employees

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration Center

Bath, New York

Case No. 35-3249(CA)

Dear Mr. Sussman:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of

the subject complaint filed by the National Federation of Federal

Employees, Local 491 (NFFE), in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director, I

find that a reasonable basis *has not been established for the

complaint and, consequently, further proceedings in this matter

are unwarranted. Thus, I agree that the NFEE and the American

Federation of Government Employees, Local 3306, AFL-CIO (AFGE),

the Petitioner in Case No. 35-3125(R0), were in equivalent status

at the time the Activity revised the employee eligibility list

and that the Activity's conduct in this regard, including its

dealings with the AFGE concerning the list, was not violative of

the Order. In this connection, it was noted particularly that

both the AFGE and the NFEE received copies of the revised eligibility list from the Activity and that there was insufficient

evidence to establish that the NFFE was prejudiced by its alleged

failure to receive such list at the same time as the AFGE.

Accordingly, under all of these circumstances, your request for

review, seeking reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's

dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

445
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

April 22, 1975

Mr. Bennett C. Joseph, Jr.

Chairman, Grievance Committee

Local 491

National Federation of Federal *ifH

Employees, Inc.

P. 0. Box 442

Bath, New York 14810

Re: Veterans Administration Center

Bath, New York

Case No. 35-3254 (CA)

Dear Mr. Joseph:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal

of the subject complaint filed by the National Federation of

Federal Employees, Local 491 (NFFE) in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director,

I find that further proceedings in this matter are not warranted

inasmuch as a reasonable basis for the complaint was not

established. As found by the Acting Assistant Regional Director,

the basic issue involved herein is whether or not a particular

employee is a supervisor within the meaning of the Order. Under

the circumstances of this case such a matter, in my view, should

be resolved through the processing of a petition for clarification

of unit (CU) rather than in the context of an unfair labor practice

proceeding.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint,

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

</•»*

Mr. Wilbert Carmichael °

212 Devoe Drive

Columbia, South Carolina 2920U

Re.: American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1SC9

Case No. ^0-5755(00)

Dear Mr. Carmichael:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint in the above-named case alleging violation of Section

19(b)(1) of Executive Order IIU9I, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director and based

on his reasoning with respect to the merits of the instant case,

I find that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted

in that a reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established,.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

446
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

4-30-75

Mr. Michael Sussman

Staff AttorneyNational Federation of Federal **0^

Employees

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Headquarters, 31st Combat

Support Group (TAC)

Homestead Air Force Base, Florida

Case No. 42-2575

Dear M r . Sussman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal

of the complaint in the above-captioned case alleging violations

of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director, I

find that further proceedings in the instant case are unwarranted.

Thus, in my view, the Complainant did not present sufficient

evidence to establish a reasonable basis for the allegation that

the failure of the Activity to grant Ollie Shields official time

to appeal the Activity's decision on his grievance, which was

being processed under the Agency grievance procedure, or to grant

him an extension of time to file such an appeal, was motivated

by anti-union considerations.

!

Accordingly, and noting that a violation of an agency grievance

procedure would not, by itself, constitute a violation of Section

19 of the Order, Cf. Office of Economic Opportunity, Region V ,

Chicago, Illinois, A/SLMR No. 334, your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal

of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

v s - - 7 - 7 - r

Mr. Alfonso Garcia

National Representative

American Federation of *S04

Government Employees

5911 Dwyer Road, Apt. 28

New Orleans, Louisiana 70126

Re: U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Finance Center

New Orleans, Louisiana

Case No. 6U-2U^1

Dear Mr. Garcia:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint in the above-named case, alleging violations of Section

19(a)(1) and (2 ) of Executive Order 11U91, as amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with

the Assistant Regional Director, that further proceedings in

this matter are unwarranted. Thus, in my view, the Complainant

herein did not present sufficient evidence to establish a

reasonable basis for the allegation that the Activity’s termination of Evelyn Bowers was motivated by anti-union considerations.

In this regard, see Section 203.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's

Regulations which provides that the complainant shall bear the

burden of proof at all stages of the proceeding regarding matters

alleged in its complaint.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is

denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor
^ - 7 - 7 ^

Lisa Renee Strax, Esq.

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal CflC

Employees O W D

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

R e : Department of Air Force

K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base,

Michigan

Case No. 52-5862(CA)

Dear Ms. Strax:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint in the above-named case alleging violations of Section

19(a)(6) of Executive Order IIU9 1 , as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that a reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established and, consequently, further proceedings in this matter are

unwarranted. It is your contention that the Activity violated

Section 19(a)(6) of the Order by refusing to consult, confer,

or negotiate with the National Federation of Federal Employees,

Local 1256 (NFFE), prior to May 9, 197*+, over the impact on unit

employees of a reduction in Environmental Differential Pay.

The evidence reveals, however, that at no time before May 9,

197*+, did the NFFE request to meet and confer concerning the

impact such pay reductions would have on unit employees, although

it is undisputed that the NFFE was notified of the planned

reductions prior to that time. Cf. U.S. Department of Air Force,

Norton Air Force Ba s e , A/SLMR No. 2637!

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint,

is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A SH IN G T O N

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

7 - 7 -J "

Mr. Jack L. Copess

Hawaii Federal Employees

Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO ^

925 Bethel Street, Room 210

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

R e : Department of the Navy

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard

Case No. 73-587(CA)

Dear Mr. Copess:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

subject complaint filed by the Hawaii Federal Employees Metal

Trades Council, AFL-CIO, in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that further proceedings in the matter are not warranted.

Thus, it was concluded that Section 19(d) of the Order prohibits the consideration of the allegations raised in your

complaint as the evidence establishes that such allegations

have been raised previously under a negotiated grievance

procedure.

Accordingly, and noting that matters raised for the first

time in a request for review cannot be considered by the

Assistant Secretary (see Report on Ruling, No. 46, copy enclosed),

your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant

Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

448
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W ASH I NT G T O N__

/ J

M s . Lynne Holland

C/o Arthur McLaughlin

Executive Secretary

Overseas Education Association/

National Education Association O J /

1201 - l6th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

Re: U. S. Dependents School

European Area (Directorate)

Case No. 22-557l(cA)

Dear Ms. Holland:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint in the above-named case alleging violation of Section

19(a)(3) of Executive Order IIU9 1 , as amended;

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, and

based on his reasoning, I 'find that a reasonable basis for the

instant complaint was not established, and, consequently,

further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. With

respect to the matters raised in your request for review which

had not previously been raised with the Assistant Regional Director,

see Assistant Secretary's Report on a Ruling. No. k6. (Copy

enclosed).

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint,

is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

5-7-75

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Michael Sussman, Esq.

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal 5 0 8

Employees

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Headquarters, 31st Combat

Support Group (TAC)

Homestead Air Force Base, Florida

Case No. 42-2573(CA)

Dear Mr. Sussman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

Section 19(a)(1) and (2) allegations of the complaint in the

above-captioned case.

The Assistant Regional Director dismissed the complaint in

its entirety on the grounds that no reasonable basis for the

complaint was established. In so finding, he concluded that

the incident which led to the penalizing of employee Schaffer

was not pretextual but, rather, that the Respondent had acted

"in a disinterested defense of, or furtherance of its safety

rules ..." by disciplining Schaffer for the violation of those

rules. He concluded, further, that there was no evidence that

the Respondent intended to interfere with employees' protected

rights.

Upon careful consideration of your request for review, I

have concluded that a reasonable basis for the Section 19(a)(1)

and (2) allegations has been established, and that factual issues

have been raised which can best be resolved by a hearing.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of

the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the Section 19(a)

(1 ) and (2 ) portions of the complaint, is granted, and this case

is hereby remanded to the Assistant Regional Director for

reinstatement of the Section 19(a)(1) and (2) portions of the

complaint and, absent settlement, for issuance of a notice of

hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

449
May 15, 1975

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r b t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Allen Kaplan

National Vice-President

American Federation of Government 509

Employees, Seventh District

446 North Central

Northfield, Illinois 60093

Re: Veterans Administration

Veterans Administration Hospital

Allen Park, Michigan

Case No. 52-5381(CA)

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

I have considered carefully your request for review

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's

dismissal of the complaint in the above named case alleging

violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of Executive Order

11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted based

on the Complainant's lack of cooperation and prosecution of

its complaint. Cf. American Federation of Government Employees,

AFL-CIO, National Office, A/SLMR No. 483. In this regard

noted particularly was the Complainant's indication to the

Assistant Regional Director, two days prior to the opening

of the third rescheduled hearing, that if the hearing took

place as scheduled on November 13, 1974, it would not attend.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint,

is denied.

*

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

Mr. Darrell D. Reazin

Vice President

Professional Air Traffic Controllers

Organization,

Western Region, Marine Engineers . C-in

Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO, O X U

8105 Edgewater Drive, Suite 109

Oakland, California 9**621

Re: Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Oakland Air Route Traffic

Control Center

Case No. 70-1*1+63

Dear Mr. Reazin:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the°

complaint in the above-named case.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that further proceedings

in this matter are unwarranted. In your request for review you

contend that the Respondent Activity violated the Order by changing

the contents and format of the monthly newsletter, the Oakland

Center Free Press, without consulting the Complainant labor organization and by using the newsletter to avoid its bargaining

obligations. In support of your contention, you cite three articles

which appeared in the newsletter concerning parking, a revised

employee dress code, and new drapes and furniture for the television

room. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish th^t the

Activity refused to meet and confer with the Complainant on such

subjects or that the articles in question were designed to disparage

or undermine the_ status of the Complainant as exclusive representative.

Moreover, there is .no evidence that the Activity aided in or

encouraged the preparation of the articles dealing with parking and

new drapes and furniture.

In reaching the disposition herein, it was noted additionally

that the allegations in your request for review differ from the

allocations set forth in the instant complaint. Thuu, the complaint is based on alleged improprieties in the establishment and

publication of the newsletter, whereas, as indicated above, the

allegations raised in your request for review are based essentially

on alleged changes in the format and contents of the newsletter.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

450
- 2 -

Under all of these circumstances, I find that a reasonable

basis has not been established for the instant complaint.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the complaint, is

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

•,Assistant Secretary of Labor

v T - / tj- 7 -r

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r f . t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

Mr. Donald R. Paquette

Associate Professor of Engineering, and

Vice Chairman, USMMA Chapter, UFCT rj j

U. S. Merchant Marine Academy O i l

9 Flo Drive

Syosset, New York 11791

Re: Department of Commerce

U. S. Merchant Marine Academy

Case No. 30-5585(CA)

Dear Mr. Paquette:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

instant complaint filed by you alleging that the Department of

Commerce, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy violated Section 19(a)(1)

and (6 ) of Executive Order l l ^ l , as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director and based

on his reasoning, I find that the dismissal of the instant complaint is warranted. Thus, I find that the 1969 Qualification

Standards, which were formulated in accordance with Section

6.05 of Maritime Administration Order No. l8l(A), superseded the

1966 Qualification Standards. Moreover, even assuming that the

1969 revisions were adopted unilaterally, no finding of a

violation of the Executive Order could be made on such a basis

because your unfair labor practice charge and complaint in this

matter was untimely filed in relation to such conduct. See, in

this regard, Section 203.2 of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul .J. Fasser. Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

451
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

May 19, 1975

Mr. H. C. McBeth

Acting Civilian Personnel Officer 512

Department of the Army

Corpus Christi Array Depot

Corpus Christi, Texas 78149

Re: U.S. Department of the Army

U.S. Army Aeronautical Depot

Maintenance Center

Corpus Christi, Texas

Case No. 63-5033 (G&A)

Dear M r . McBeth:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal

of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Application

for Decision on Grievability or Arbitrability in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Assistant Regional

Director erred in finding arbitrable the subject grievance concerning

administrative leave for blood donations. The grievance alleged violations of Article 3, Section 1, of the parties' negotiated agreement

which incorporates Section 12(a) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In reaching his decision, the Assistant Regional Director found that the

Federal Labor Relations Council's (Council) decision in Elmendorf Air

Force Base (Wildwood Air Force Station) 7 2 A - 1 0 , nullified Article 5,

Section 2 and Article 28, Section 1 of the negotiated agreement which

were included in the agreement pursuant to an Agency directive and

which, in effect, excluded questions involving the interpretation of

published Agency policies or regulations, provisions of law, or regulations of appropriate authorities outside the Agency from the scope of

the negotiated grievance procedure. It is your contention that while

the Elmendorf decision may have rendered invalid the provisions in issue,

such decision did not extend the grievance procedure to matters excluded

prior to such decision.

Under all of the circumstances, I find that the subject grievance

is not on a matter subject to the negotiated grievance procedure. Thus,

in Department of the Navy, Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane, Indiana,

74A-19, the Council held that in deciding whether a grievance is on a

matter subject to a negotiated grievance procedure, the Assistant

Secretary must consider all relevant factors including the intent of

- 2 -

the parties. Applying this principle to the instant case, it is clear 

that when the parties negotiated their current agreement, they did not 

intend for the negotiated grievance procedure to cover matters, such as 

those at issue herein, which involve the interpretation of published 

Agency policies or regulations, provisions of law, or regulations of 

other appropriate authorities. In this connection, it was noted that 

the parties specifically excluded such matters from the negotiated 

grievance procedure. Moreover, while the Council's decision in Elmendorf 

rendered invalid the Department of Defense directive which restricted the 

scope and nature of the grievance procedure, in my view, such decision 

did not necessarily extend the coverage of the existing negotiated 

grievance procedure to matters excluded previously by the parties.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of.the 

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Application for 

Decision on Grievability or Arbitrability, is granted, and the Application herein is dismissed.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary of Labor

452
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

M A Y 1 9 1975

iir. U. C. Hc.beth

Acting Civilian Personnel Officer 513

Department of the A m y

Corpus Christi Army Depot

Corpus Christi, Texas 73X49

Rei U.S. Department of the Array

U.S. Army Aeronautical Depot

Maintenance Center

Corpus Christi, Texas

Case No. 63-5049(G&A)

L'ear Hr. McBeth:

X have considered carefully your request for review seeking reversal

of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Application

for Decision on Grievability or Arbitrability in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Assistant Regional

Director erred in finding arbitrable the subject grievance which involves the Activity's refusal to approve promotional training for the

gricvant. The grievance alleged violations of Article 3, Section i:, of

the parties' negotiated agreement which Incorporates Section 12(a) of

Executive Order 11491, a3 amended. In reaching his decision, the

Assistant Regional Director found that the Federal Labor Relations

Council's (Council) decision in Elaendorf Air Force Base (Wllch.-ood Air

Force Station), 72A-10, nullified Article 5, Section 2 and Article 28,

Section 1 of the negotiated agreement which vere included in the agreement pursuant to an Agency directive and which, in effect, excluded

questions involving the interpretation of published Agency policies or

regulations, provisions of law, or regulations of appropriate authorities

outside the Agency froo the scope of the negotiated grievance procedure.

It Is your contention that vhile the Elaendorf decision nay have rendered

invalid the provisions in issue, such decision did not extend the

grievance procedure to uatters excluded prior to such decision.

Under all of the circumstances, X find that the subject grievance

is not on a matter subject to the negotiated grievance procedure. Thus,

in Department of the ?iaw. tlaval /-munition Depot, Crane, Indiana,

74A-19, the Council held that in deciding whether a grievance is on a

matter subject to a negotiated grievance procedure, the Assistant Secretary must consider all relevant factors iucluding the Intent of the

parties. Applying this principle to the instant case, it is clear that

- 2

. tha p.-.rtiea negotiated their current ajreaaent, they aid not intend

£:>r the negotiated grievance' procedure to cover natters, such as those

.•it issue herein, v.-hich involve the interpretation of published Agency

policies or regulations, provisions of lav, or regulations of other

nppropriate cvothorities. in this connection, it vas noted that the

parties specifically excluded such natters fraa tha negotiated grievance procedure. Moreover, vhile tha Council’s decision in i-loendorf

rendered Invalid the Ecpartnent of Defease directive which restricted

the :;cope and nature of the grievance procedure, in uy view, such decision did not necessarily extend the coverage of the existing

negotiated grievance procedura to natters excluded previously by tha

parties.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of tho

Assistant rational Director's Report and Findings on Application for

: 'jctsion o.; Griavablilty or Arbitrability, is granted, and the Application herein is dismissed.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

453
v ^ r

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

l-ir. Michael Sussman

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal .

Employees 0 1 4

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

R e : Veterans Administration Hospital

New Orleans, Louisiana

Case No. 6l+-2513(CO)

Dear Mr. Sussman:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal

of the complaint in the above-named case alleging violation of

Section 19(b)(1) and (2) of Executive Order 111+91, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director and

based on his reasoning, I find that dismissal of the instant

complaint is warranted in that a reasonable basis for the

complaint has not been established.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of

the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your complaint is

denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

JUN 3197s

Mr. Curtis Ristesund

National Vice President *--1 r

32th District, AFGE

3320 Grand Avenue* Suite 2

Oakland, California 9^610

Re: U. S. Navy, Naval Air Rework

Facility, Haval Air Station,

Alameda, California

Case No. 70-^582(25)

Dear Mr. Ristesund:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's, action in denying

the request by the American Federation of Government Employees,

AFL-CIO (AFGE), for an extension of the posting period in the

subject case and, therefore, denying the AFGE's request to

intervene.

In my view, your request for review failed to 3how good cause

for extending the ten day posting period as required by Section

202.5(c) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations. Nor did it

raise any ciaterial issue which would warrant reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's action in this matter. In reaching

the disposition herein, it was noted that while the posting

period ended on January 9, 1975, the AFG3 wan given.until

January 13, 1975, to submit an adequate showing of interest.

However, no additional showing of interest was submitted.

Accordingly, your request for reviev, seeking reversal of

the Assistant Regional Director's denial of the AFGE's request

for an extension of the posting period and, in effect, reversal

of his denial of the AFGE's request for intervention on the

b a s i 3 of inadequate showing of interest, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, -Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

454
Oi'Kici: o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

^ y / 7 j

Pat Morris, Esq. tr-i C

Law Offices of Nicholas & Morris DAO

505 South Water Street

Corpus Christi, Texas 78U01

Re: Corpus Christi Army Depot

Corpus Christi, Texas

Case No. 63-5368(CA)

Dear Mr. Morris:

I have considered carefully your request for review,

seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint in the above-captioned case alleging

violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (4) of Executive Order

11^91, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I

find that dismissal of the instant complaint is warrantedt

Thus, Section 203.6(e) of the Regulations of the Assistant

Secretary places the burden of proof at all stages of an

unfair labor practice proceeding upon the Complainant, and

in the instant case insufficient evidence was presented to

establish a reasonable basis for the allegations that Mr. Flores

was discriminated against because of his union activities or

because he had filed a complaint or had given testimony under

the Executive Order.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal

of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint in the instant matter, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

6 - ^

Mr. John Helm 

Staff Attorney

national Federation of Federal /-j _

Employees O X /

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. ,‘20066

Re: U. S. Army Air Defense Center 

Fort Bliss, Texas 

Case No. 63~5355(CA)

Dear fir. Helm:

I have considered carefully your request for reviev/ seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of 

the complaint in the above-named case, alleging violations of 

Section 19(a)(1), (2) and (1+) of Executive Order 11491, as 

amended.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with 

the Assistant Regional Director, that further proceedings in 

this matter are unwarranted. Thus, in my view, the Complainant 

did not present sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable 

basis to support the allegations that the Activity's application of the reduction-in-hours procedures, rather than 

reduction-in-force procedures, to the "NCO Club" employees, 

and any differences in .treatment accorded "NCO" employees 

and "CO Club*' employees, were based on anti-union considerations 

or on the filing of a complaint or giving testimony under the 

Order.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of 

the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your complaint, 

is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O i fici- o f t h k A s sist a n t S ix r iit a r y

W A SH l N'GTON

I'au/.i J . F a , Jr. 

tant Secretary of Labor

455
6-4-75

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Janet Cooper, Esq.

Staff Attorney

National Federation of 5JL8

Federal Employees 

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: VA - Veterans Administration Data

Processing Center, Austin, Texas

Case No.s 63-5277(CA),

5276(CA),

5288(CA) and

5278(CA)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your requests for review seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaints

in the above-named cases.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted in that a reasonable basis for the complaints has not been established. It is your assertion

that the allegations contained in the instant complaints establish prima

facie violations of various sub-sections of Section 19(a) of Executive

Order 11491, as amended, and that the denials by the Respondent Activty

raise credibility issues sufficient to warrant a hearing. However, the

bare allegations contained in the instant complaints are devoid of any

supporting evidence such as signed statements by alleged discriminatees

or by witnesses.

It has long been established policy that to warrant further proceedings a complaint must be supported by evidence, and that the burden of

proof is borne by the Complainant at all stages of the unfair labor practice proceeding. In this latter regard, see Section 203.6(e) of the Assistant Secretary’s Regulations.

Accordingly, your requests for review seeking reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the instant complaints, are denied.

N Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

t - 1 - 7 - f - ^

M s . Janet Cooper

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal r j q

Employees

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Department of Housing and Urban

Development,

Detroit Area Office,

Detroit, Michigan

Case No. 52-5817(CA)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's dismissal

of the subject complaint filed by the National Federation of'

Federal Employees, Local l8oU (NFFE), in the above-named case.

In agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director,

I find that further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted.

Thus, I agree that as the parking permits involved herein were

issued and subsequently revoked by the General Services Administration and as the Respondent had no control over such parking

permits or involvement in the decision to revoke them, it had

no obligation to meet and confer with the NFFE in this regard.

Moreover, it was noted that the NFFE did not request to meet

and confer concerning the revocation and that the Respondent

offered to meet and confer with the NFFE with regar.d to the impact

of the revocation of the parking permits on adversely affected

employees.

Accordingly, under these circumstances, your request for

review, seeking reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional

Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR a

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y n

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20210 \

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

456
U.S. DEPARTMENT OP LABOR

O r r ic !•: o r tiii- A s s i s t a n t S k c k iv i a u v 

W ASM 1 N 'G T O N 

f, / < } / 1 4 -

Mr. Michacl Sussman 

Staff Attorney

National. Federation of Federal

Employees O-CU

1737 H Street, N. W..

Washington, D. C. 20006

He: U. S. Air Force

31st Combat Support Group (TAC) 

Homestead Air Force Base, Florida 

Case No. U2-26)-iMCA)

Dear Mr. Sussman:

I have considered carefully your request for reviev; seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's finding 

that dismissal of the instant complaint was warranted based on 

untimeliness.

In agreement with the Acting Assistant Regional Director,

I find that the subject complaint, filed October lLj. 197^ > is 

procedurally defective in that it was untimely because it was 

filed more than 60 days after the date on which the final 

written decision on the charge was served on the charging 

party. You contend in your request for review that the Respondent Activity did hot serve your office with a final wrd tten 

decision on the charge. However, the evidence reveal:.; that 

on June P.O. ly Y k . the Respondent Activity properly served a 

final written decision on the charging party, NFFK Local 1167, 

pursuant to Section 203.2(b)(2) of the Assistant Secretary1s 

Regulations, and that, at that time, you had not been designated 

as counsel of record. Moreover, your request for review, filed 

March 3? 1975? over three months after the Assistant Regional 

Director's dismissal letter wa,s sent to your office, is also 

untimely.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Acting Assistant Regional. Director's dismissal 

of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t k k A s s i s t a n t S i;c k j ;t a k y

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C . 20?. 1U

C ~

Ms. Janet Cooper 

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal.

Employees OCl.

1737 H Street, N. W..

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration

Veterans Administration Data 

Processing Center 

Austin, Texas 

Case Nos. 63-531i9(CA) and 

63-5357(CA)

Dear Ms. Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for reviev/-, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the 

complaints in the above-named cases, alleging violations of 

Section 19(a)(2) of Executive Order 11^91, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I. find 

that there is insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable 

basis for the instant complaints. As you are aware, Section 

203.6(e) of the Regulations of the Assistant Secretary places 

the burden of proof at all stages of the proceeding regarding 

matters alleged in the complaint upon the Complainant. No 

evidence was presented to support the complaints in this matter, 

other than undocumented allegations -of -a eause-and-effeet 

relationship leading to the promotions of a number of individuals 

as a result of their alleged activities on behalf of a decertification effort.

Under these circumstances, your request for review, seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of your 

complaints, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, J.r.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

457
JUN 10 1975

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Neal Fine

Assistant Counsel

National Treasury Employees Union K O O

Suite 1101

1730 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: Internal Revenue Service

Austin Service Center

Austin, Texas

Case No. 63-5065(CA)

Dear Mr. Fine:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of the

complaint in the above-named case.

Under all of the circumstances, I agree with the Assistant

Regional Director that Section 19(d) of the Order precludes

further proceedings on allegations (a), (c), (e), (f) and (g)

of Charge I of the complaint as such allegations were raised

previously under the parties* negotiated grievance procedure.

Thus, I agree with the Assistant Regional Director that the

Complainant’s withdrawal of the subject grievance did not afford

it the right to file an unfair labor practice complaint concerning

the allegations raised in such grievance. Moreover, I agree with

the Assistant Regional Director that there is insufficient

evidence to support a reasonable basis for the remaining allegations in Charge I. I therefore conclude the allegations in

Charge I of the complaint were properly dismissed.

However, contrary to the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that a reasonable basis exists for Charge IX of the complaint and

that the issues raised therein can best be resolved on basis of

evidence adduced at a hearing. Accordingly, your request for

review is granted, in part, and the case is remanded to the

Assistant Regional Director for reinstatement of the allegations

in Charge IX of the complaint and, absent settlement, the

issuance of a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o p t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 19, 1975

Ms. Janet Cooper

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal KOI.

Employees 0&%j

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: General Services Administration

Federal Supply Service

Case No. 22-5725(CA)

Dear M s . Cooper:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director’s dismissal of your

complaint alleging violations of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of

Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, and based

on his reasoning, I find that the Respondent Activity was not

obligated to meet and confer with .the National Federation of

Federal Employees, Local 1642 (Complainant), with respect to the

Quality Control Laboratory Evaluation Study which was conducted

during February and March 1974. Moreover, I find that the Complainant

failed to establish a reasonable basis for its allegation that

personnel reassignments and transfers resulted from the instant

study.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

458
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 19, 1975

Mr. Gary B. Landsman

Staff Counsel

American Federation of Government K O /1

Employees, AFL-CIO

1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W. \

Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: Arizona National Guard

Air National Guard

Sky Harbor Airport

Phoenix, Arizona

Case No. 72-4777

Dear Mr. Landsman:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

the setting aside of the Assistant Regional Director's approval

of the Settlement Agreement in the above-named case.

The substance of the allegations in this case concerned the

Activity's refusal to recognize employee Deyerberg as president

of the local union, because it considered him a supervisor. The

Assistant Secretary, in a clarification of unit proceeding,

determined that Deyerberg was not a supervisor within the meaning

of Section 2(c) of the Order and, therefore, his job classification was included in the unit. Arizona National Guard, Air

National Guard, Sky Harbor Airport, A/SLMR No. 436. Thereafter,

the Assistant Regional Director declined to issue a notice of

hearing herein and approved a settlement agreement which included

the posting of a notice indicating that the Activity would

recognize Deyerberg as the local union's designated representative.

In your request for review, you urge that the basis of the

charges did not deal with the issue of whether Deyerberg was a

supervisor, but whether an Activity had the authority to "supersede the authority of the Assistant Secretary ... in regard to

unit clarifications and supervisory determinations." In view of

the resolution of the supervisory status of Deyerberg, and the

Respondent's agreement to post a notice indicating its recognition

of his status as the union's designated representative, I find

that the Assistant Regional Director’s approval of the settlement

agreement in this matter was appropriate.

-2-

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking the setting

aside of the Assistant Regional Director's approval of the

settlement agreement in this matter, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

459
6-19-75

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Jerry L. Snider

President, Missouri State Federation

of Federal Employees

National Federation of Federal Employees

8702 David

St. John, Missouri 63114

Re: Automated Logistics Management

Systems Agency,

St. Louis, Missouri

Case No. 62-4087(CA)

Dear Mr. Snider:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint in the above-named case.

Under all of the circumstances, I find, in agreement with the

Assistant Regional Director and based on his reasoning, that a

reasonable basis for the instant complaint has not been established and that, consequently, further proceedings in this matter

are unwarranted. Accordingly, your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

525

M r . Paul Area

Acting Staff Director

Labor Relations and Equal

Opportunity Staff

Social Security Administration

61*01 Security Boulevard

Baltimore, Maryland 21235

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h l A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

Re: Social Security Administration

Bureau of District Office Operations

Boston Region

Case No. 31-8590(AP)

Dear Mr. Area:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings

on Application for Decision on Grievability or Arbitrability

in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Assistant

Regional Director erred in finding grievable and arbitrable

the subject grievance which involves the failure of the Activity

either to prepare a performance appraisal of Stewart Ehrlich,

a probationary employee,' during the ninth or tenth month of his

employment or to issue an appropriate certification of his

performance as required by the Federal Personnel Manual (7PM)

and to give Ehrlich two weeks notice of his termination as

required by the Agency:s policy and procedures. The grievance

alleged violations of Article 3, Section l(a) of the parties'

negotiated agreement which incorporates Section 12(a) of

Executive Order 111*91, as amended. In reaching his decision,

the Assistant Regional Director found that the Order coes not

exclude questions involving the interpretation of published

Agency policies or regulations, provisions of law, or regulations of appropriate authorities outside the Agency from

the negotiated grievance procedure. He also found that the

parties had not agreed to exclude such questions from the scope

of their negotiated grievance procedure and that the subject

grievance did not involve a matter for which a statutory appeal

procedure exists. It is your contention that there is no

provision in the negotiated agreement which makes the termination

of a probationary employee or the procedures "leading up" to

such a termination grievable or arbitrable.

460
- 2 -

Under all of the circumstances, I find that the instant 

grievance is not on a matter subject to the negotiated grievance 

procedure. Thus, in Department of the Navy, Saval Ammunition 

Depot, Crane, Indiana, 74A-19, the Federal labor Relations 

Council held that in deciding whether a grievance is on a matter 

subject to a negotiated grievance procedure the Assistant Secretary 

must consider all relevant factors, including those provisions of 

the negotiated agreement which describe the scope and coverage of 

the negotiated grievance procedure as well as the substantive provisions of the agreement which are being grieved. Applying this 

principle to the instant case, it is clear that the subject 

grievance is not on a matter which is grievable or arbitrable 

under the negotiated grievance procedure. Thus, Article 32,

Section 2 (Grievances) of the negotiated agreement provides, in 

part, that a grievance under the agreement does not include "issues 

requiring the interpretation of published DHEW and CSC policies 

and regulations." In my view, a decision on the merits of the 

subject grievance would require an interpretation of Chapter 315, 

Subchapter 8, Section 3 of the FPM and the Agency's Personnel 

Guides for Supervisors, Chapter VII, SSA Guide 2-2 (SSA Guide 2-2). 

Moreover, while Chapter 315, Subchapter 8, Section 3 of the FPM 

provides that a probationary employee should be evaluated during ■ 

the ninth or tenth month of employment and the employee1s supervisor should issue an appropriate certification as to his performance 

the subject section indicates that an activity's failure to comply 

with such provisions will not affect the activity's right to terminat 

the probationary employee. Regarding the issue in the grievance 

concerning notification to the employee involved, while SSA 

Guide 2-2 provides that a '"probationary employee should be given 

at least 2 weeks advance notice" of his termination, it is unclear 

whether the provision is advisory or mandatory, or whether the 

failure of an activity to comply with such provision-affects in 

any way its right to terminate a probationary employee. Under 

these circumstances, and noting also the Activity's indisputed 

contention that when the parties' negotiated the subject agreement 

they did not intend for the negotiated grievance procedure to 

cover matters involving probationary employees, such as those 

at issue herein, I find that the subject grievance is "not 

grievable or arbitrable under the negotiated agreement.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Application 

for Decision on Grievability or Arbitrability, is granted, and the 

application herein is hereby dismissed.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 24, 1975

Mr. Robert M. Tobias

General Counsel

National Treasury Employees Union

Suite 1101

1730 K Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

G. Jerry Shaw, Attorney

General Legal Services Division

Branch 1 - Room 4109 KO*7

Internal Revenue Service O & f

1111 Constitution Avenue, N . W.

Washington, D. C. 20224

Re: National Treasury Employees Union

(Internal Revenue Service)

Case No. 22-5976(CO)

Gentlemen:

This is in connection with the request for review in the subject case,

filed on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), seeking

reversal of the Administrative Law Judge's finding that there exists reasonable cause to believe that the NTEU has picketed and currently plans to

picket the Internal Revenue Service, in connection with a labor-management

dispute, in violation of Section 19(b)(4) of the Executive Order 11491, as

amended. In this regard, the Administrative Law Judge ordered, among other

things, that the NTEU cease and desist, pending disposition of the complaint,

from picketing the Internal Revenue Service in a labor-management dispute,

and that it shall immediately take affirmative action to prevent and stop any

such picketing.

Upon careful consideration of the parties' stipulation, the Administrative Law Judge's Order, and the NTEU's request for review, I find that the

evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Assistant

Regional Director has established at the preliminary hearing in this matter

that there exists a reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section

19(b)(4) of the Order has occurred and that there has been no satisfactory

written offer of settlement by the NTEU.■

Accordingly, and noting particularly that the foregoing determination

is riot a decision on the merits of the instant case but, rather, is a finding

461
-2-

merely that the Assistant Regional Director has established that there is

reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 19(b)(4) has occurred,

the request for review filed by the NTEU in this matter is hereby denied.

Further, under the circumstances, the request filed on behalf of the Internal

Revenue Service to respond to the NTEU's request for review is hereby denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 24, 1975

John Helm, Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal 528

Employees

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Defense Supply Agency,

Defense Industrial Plant

Equipment Center

Memphis, Tennessee

Case No. 41-3921(CA)

Dear Mr. Helm:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

complaint alleging violation of Section 19(a)(6) of Executive

Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director and based on

his reasoning, I find that further proceedings in this matter are

not warranted in that a reasonable basis for the complaint has not

been established.

In your request for review, you urge that Section 19(a)(6) was

violated because the events described constituted a substantial

change in working conditions, and also because the incident involved

constituted a formal discussion within the meaning of Section 10(e).

I find, in agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, that

under the circumstances herein the investigation of the alleged

theft did not constitute a change in working conditions. Nor did

the incident constitute a formal discussion within the meaning of

Section 10(e) of the Order.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

462
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 24, 1975

Mr. Gerald C. To.bin

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal ICQQ

Employees Q£*j

1737 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

Re: Veterans Administration Center

Bath, New York

Case No. 35-3125(RO)

Dear Mr. Tobin:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director*s denial of your

motion to dismiss the petition filed by the American Federation of

Government Employees, Local 3306, AFL-CIO, in the above-named case.

No provision, is made for filing a request for review of an

Assistant Regional Director's action in denying a motion to dismiss

a petition. See, in this regard, Report on a Decision of the

Assistant Secretary, Report No. 8 (copy enclosed).

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's action in this matter, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

U .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y

WASHINGTON

Mr. Elbert C. Newton 

Labor Relations Advisor 

Department of the Navy

Regional Office of Civilian Manpower ti'Jn

Management J O U

Box 88, Naval Air Station 

Jacksonville, Florida 32212

Re: Naval Aerospace and Regional 

Medical Center,

Pensacola, Florida 

Case No. 1+2-2712 (RA)

Naval Aerospace Medical 

Laboratory,

Pensacola, Florida 

Case No. l+2-2713(RA)

Naval Aerospace Medical 

Institute,

Pensacola, Florida 

Case No. 1+2-2711+(RA)

Dear Mr. Newton:

I have considered carefully your request for reviev/ seeking 

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the 

RA petitions in the above-named cases and have concluded that 

the effect of the Naval Aerospace Medical Center's reorganization 

in July 197^ and its impact upon the employees in the exclusively 

recognized unit, can best be determined on the basis of evidence 

adduced at a hearing.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the 

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the petitions, is 

granted, and the Assistant Regional Director is directed to 

reinstate the petitions, consolidate the above-named cases and 

issue a notice of hearing.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

463
O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H IN G T O N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

June 30, 1975

Lisa Renee Strax, Esq.

Staff Attorney

National Federation of Federal 531.

Employees

1737 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: U. S. Air Force, Headquarters

31st Combat Support Group (TAC)

Homestead Air Force Base,.

Florida

Case No. 42-2649(CA)

Dear Ms. Strax:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the

instant complaint alleging violation of Sections 19(a)(1), (2),

(5) and (6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find

that further proceedings in this matter are not warranted

inasmuch as a reasonable basis for the complaint was not

established. You assert that the Respondent Activity violated

the Order by refusing to complete Step 2 of the negotiated

grievance procedure so as to avoid the possibility of advisory

arbitration.

In my view, in the absence of bad faith, grievability and

arbitrability questions, such as those involved herein, are not

matters to be resolved under Section 19 of the Order. Section

13(d) of the Executive Order provides a procedure for the referral

of grievability and arbitrability questions to the Assistant

Secretary. Thus, a party may, in good faith, assert that a

matter is not grievable or arbitrable under a negotiated agreement. Thereafter, pursuant to Part 205 of the Assistant

Secretary's Regulations, a determination may be obtained from

the Assistant Secretary as to whether the matter involved is

grievable or arbitrable.

Under these circumstances, and noting that there was 

insufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent Activity

-2-

acted in bad faith or that you were prejudiced by its alleged

failure to serve you with a copy of the request for an extension

of time in which to answer your request for review, I find that

denial of your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is

warranted.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

464
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f f i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

June 30, 1975

Dolph David Sand, Esq.

Office of Chief Counsel

Branch N o . 1

General Legal Services Division *5^2

Room 4425 - IRS Building 00jC

1111 Constitution Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20224

Re: Internal Revenue Service

Philadelphia Service Center

Case No. 20-4723(AP)

Dear Mr. Sand:

I have considered carefully your request for review, seeking reversal

of the Acting Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievaability or Arbitrability, in the above-named case.

In your request for review, you contend that the Acting Assistant Regional

Director erred in finding arbitrable the subject grievance concerning an

employee's forfeiture of certain benefits as a result of the employee having

been on leave .without pay from December 1, 1971 until January 7, 1974. It

is your position that the grievance filed on February 7, 1974, was filed

untimely under the terms of the negotiated grievance procedure as it was

filed more than 15 days after the occurrence of the event in issue. In this

connection, you contend that the critical date is either December 1, 1971,

the date on which the grievant's leave without pay status began or January

7, 1974, the date the grievant's leave status terminated, rather than January

30, 1974, the date on which allegedly the grievant first learned of the

forfeiture of her benefits. You further contend that even if the grievance

was filed timely, such grievance is not arbitrable because the matters in

dispute do not involve an adverse action under the terms of the negotiated

agreement as, allegedly, the grievant's request for leave without pay was

voluntary. Finally, you contend that the Assistant Secretary must decide

the timeliness issue, and if necessary, the issue as to whether the dispute

herein involves an. adverse action and is, therefore, arbitrable.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find that the instant

grievance was filed untimely and consequently is not arbitrable under the

parties' negotiated arbitration procedure. In my view, the primary issue

herein is whether the grievant was coerced into requesting leave without pay.

If the grievant's request for leave without pay was voluntary, the Activity's

action in placing her on leave would not constitute an adverse action within

the meaning of the negotiated agreement and the matter would not be grievable

or arbitrable under the agreement. In this regard, it was noted that the

exclusive representative,of the grievant conceded in its Application that

the issues as to the propriety of the subject forfeiture of benefits may be

raised under the agreement only if the grievant's request for leave was

involuntary. In these circumstances, I conclude that as the primary issue

involves whether the leave involved was voluntary or coerced, the critical

date for determining the timeliness of the grievance is the date on which the

grievant was placed on leave. And as the instant grievance was filed more

than 15 days after such date, in my view, it was filed untimely under the

negotiated agreement.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the Acting

Assistant Regional Director's Report and Findings on Grievability or

Arbitrability, is granted, and the instant Application is dismissed.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

465
June 30, 1975

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

O f p i c e o f t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y

W A S H I N G T O N

Mr. Juan Bernal

President, National Federation of

Federal Employees, Local 1112

2042 Santa Rosa

Houston, Texas 77023

Re: U. S. Air Force - 2578th Group

Ellington AFB, Texas

Case No. 63-5284(CA)

Dear Mr. Bernal:

I have considered carefully your request for review seeking,

reversal of the Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint in the above-named case, alleging violation of Section 19(a)

(6) of Executive Order 11491, as amended.

In agreement with the Assistant Regional Director, I find that,

further proceedings in this matter are unwarranted. Thus, in my

view, the evidence presented by the Complainant herein was insufficient to establish a reasonable basis for its contentions that

the Activity's conduct in rescheduling certain employee lunch hours

and in refusing to pay overtime to employees who worked during their

normal lunch hours, but who did not work in excess of eight hours

during their shifts, constituted a change in established policies and

practices. Rather, the evidence established merely that one unit

employee was permitted to work through his scheduled 45 minute lunch

period and, in lieu of such lunch period, he was given compensatory

time and was not paid overtime.

Accordingly, your request for review, seeking reversal of the

Assistant Regional Director's dismissal of the complaint, is denied.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor

* U . S . G O VE R N M E N T P R I N T I N G O F F I C E : I 9 76 — 2 0 0 - I 1

466
'.a

A
\

\