Digest and Index of Published

Decisions of the Assistant Secretary

of Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Pursuant to Executive Order 11491,

As Amended, January 1,1970

through June 30,1974

U.S. Department of Labor

Labor-Management Services Administration

Digest and Index of Published

Decisions of the Assistant Secretary

of Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Pursuant to Executive Order 11491,

As Amended, January 1,1970

through June 30,1974

U.S. Department of Labor

John T. Dunlop, Secretary

Labor-Management Services Administration

Paul J. Passer, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Office of Pederal Labor-Management Relations

Louis S. Wallerstein, Director

This edition covers the period of January 1, 1970-June 30, 1974.

It is fully self-contained and completely replaces all previous editions.

This edition contains a master of the Table of Contents and the

Tables of Decisions and Reports on Rulings, each covering

the full period of Januaryl, 1970 through June 30,1974.

1975
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.90 

Stock number 029-000-00235-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

P R E F A C E ................................................................................................................................................................................ vii

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................................................. ix

DIGEST

05 00 00 GENERAL PR O VISIO NS................................................................................................................................... 1

05 04 00 D efinitions.............................................................................................................................................. 1

05 08 00 Coverage of Executive O rd er.............................................................................................................. 2

05 12 00 Evidence .............................................................................................................................................. 3

05 12 04 Request for LMSA Documents and LMSA Personnel at H e a r in g s ........................... 3

05 12 08 Admissibility at Hearings.................................................................................................... 3

0516 00 Advisory O p in io n s................................................................................................................... ..... • 3

05 20 00 Concurrent Related C a s e s .............................................................................................................. • 3

05 24 00 Role of NLRB D ecisio n s................................................................................................................... 4

05 28 00 S e r v ic e ................................................................................................................................................... 4

05 32 00 Transitional P ro b lem s......................................................................................................................... 4

05 36 00 Official T i m e ........................................................................................................................................ 4

10 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES: PRELIMINARY STAGES

10 04 00 Types of Petitions: Procedure..........................

10 04 04 Representation, Filed by Labor Organization ( R O ) ..................................................... 5

10 04 08 Agency Doubt as to Representative Status ( R A ) .......................................................... 5

10 04 12 Decertification of Representative, Filed by Employee(s) ( D R )..................................... 5

10 04 16 Clarification of Unit ( C U ) .............................................................................................. 5

10 04 20 Amendment of Recognition or Certification (A C ).......................................................... 6

10 04 24 National Consultation R ig h ts ......................................................................................... 6

10 08 00 Posting of Notice of P e titio n .............................................................................................................. 6

1012 00 Intervention ........................................................................................................................................ 6

10 16 00 Showing of In te re s t............................................................................................................................. 7

10 20 00 Labor Organization S tatus................................................................................................................... 7

10 24 00 Timeliness of P e titio n ........................................................................................................................ 7

10 24 04 Election B a r ................................................................................................................... 7

10 24 08 Certification B a r .............................................................................................................. 8

10 24 12 Agreement B a r ................................................................................................................... 8

10 28 00 Status of P e titio n e r.............................................................................................................................. 10

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified Categories of E m ployees..................................................... 10

10 36 00 Request for Review Rights................................................................................................................... 11

10 40 00 Area Administrator’s A c tio n .............................................................................................................. 11

10 44 00 Defunctness ........................................................................................................................................ 11

15 00 00 REPRESENTATION HEARING PROCEDURE.............................................................................................. 12

15 04 00 Role of Hearing Officer........................................................................................................................ 12

15 08 00 M otions................................................................................................................................................... 12

15 08 04 G e n e r a l .............................................................................................................................. 12

15 08 08 Amendment of P e titio n .................................................................................................... 12

15 12 00 Evidence and Burden of P r o o f ......................................................................................................... 12

1516 00 Unfair Labor Practice A llegations.................................................................................................... 13

15 20 00 Obligation of Parties.............................................................................................................................. 13

• ••

111
15 24 00 Post-Hearing S ubm issions.................................................................................................................... 14

15 28 00 R e m a n d ...............................................................................................................................! ! . . 14

20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERM INATIONS.......................................................................................... 14

20 04 00 C r ite r ia .................................................................................................................................................... 14

20 04 04 Community of I n t e r e s t .....................................................................• ' .......................... 14

20 04 08 Effective D ealings............................................................................................................... 15

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations . ................................................................................................ 15

20 04 16 Agency Regulations and Parties’ Stipulations Not Binding on Assistant Secretary . 16

20 04 20 Previous Certification.......................................................................................................... 16

20 08 00 Geographic S c o p e .............................................................................................................................. 16

20 08 04 W orld -w id e......................................................................................................................... 16

20 08 08 N ation-w ide....................................................................................................... . . . 16

20 0812 State-wide ......................................................................................................................... 17

20 08 16 C ity-w ide.............................................................................................................................. 17

2012 00 Organizational S c o p e ......................................................................................................................... 17

20 12 04 Agency-wide......................................................................................................................... 17

2012 08 Activity-wide .................................................................................................................... 17

201212 D irecto rate-w id e............................................................................................................... 18

2012 16 Command-wide.................................................................................................................... 18

2012 20 Headquarters-wide.............................................................................................................. 18

2012 24 F ie ld -w id e ......................................................................................................................... 18

2012 28 Region-wide............................................... ......................................................................... 19

2012 32 D iv isio n -w id e.................................................................................................................... 19

2012 36 Area-wide ......................................................................................................................... 19

20 12 40 District-wide......................................................................................................................... 19

20 12 44 Branch-w ide........................................................................................................................ 20

2012 48 Base-wide ........................................................................................................................ 20

20 12 52 Section-wide........................................................................................................................ 20

2012 56 M ulti-Installation.............................................................................................................. 20

20 12 60 Single In stallatio n .............................................................................................................. 21

2012 64 Occupational Classification............................................................................................... 21

20 16 00 Special Situations................................................................................................................................... 22

2016 04 Severance ........................................................................................................................ 22

20 16 08 A ccretion.............................................................................................................................. 23

201612 Eligibility.............................................................................................................................. 24

201616 Residual E m p lo y ees......................................................................................................... 24

20 16 20 Self-Determination.............................................................................................................. 25

2016 24 Supervisory U n i t .............................................................................................................. 25

2016 28 Reorganization.............................................................................................................. . 26

20 20 00 Employee Categories and C lassifications.......................................................................................... 26

20 24 00 Post-Decisional Intervention, Showing of Interest and W ith d raw al................................................ 43

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit Determination.......................................................................... 43

20 24 08 Showing of I n t e r e s t ......................................................................................................... 43

20 24 12 Opportunity to W ithdraw.................................................................................................... 43

25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION S T A G E S ..................................................... 43

25 04 00 Voting P ro c e d u r e s .............................................................................................................................. 43

25 04 04 Professionals .................................................................................................................... 43

25 04 08 Self-Determination.............................................................................................................. 44

25 04 12 Role of O bservers.............................................................................................................. 44

25 04 16 Severance.............................................................................................................................. 44

25 08 00 O b jectio n s............................................................................................................................................. 44

25 08 04 Under EO 10988 .............................................................................................................. 44

25 08 08 Procedure.............................................................................................................................. 44

25 08 12 Timing of Objectionable C o n d u c t.................................................................................... 45

25 08 16 Agency Rules on Campaigning......................................................................................... 45

25 08 20 Campaign Communications.............................................................................................. 46

Page

iv
25 08 24 Promises of B e n e f i t .......................................................................... ............................... 47

25 08 28 Conduct of E le c tio n .......................................... ............................... ............................... 47

25 08 32 Agency N eutrality ............................................................... ............................................... 47

2512 00 C hallenges..................................... «........................................................................................................ 47

25 12 04 Eligibility of Em ployees.................................................................................................... 47

25 12 08 Questions Concerning B a l l o t .......................................................................................... 47

25 12 12 Timing of C h allen g e.......................................................................................................... 48

2516 00 C e rtific a tio n ......................................................................................................................................... 48

25 20 00 Clarification of U n i t ............................................................................................................................... 48

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or C ertification................................................................................... 49

30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: P R O C E D U R E ............................................................................................... 49

30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints............................................................................................... 49

30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings: Investigation S tate.......................................................................................... 50

3012 00 H e a rin g .................................................................................... ............................................................... 51

3012 04 Rulings of A L J s ..........................................’ . . . ................................................ 51

30 12 08 Untimely Amendments to Complaints............................................................................... 51

301212 Failure to A p p e a r..................... ......................................................................................... 51

3012 16 Prejudicial E v id e n c e ......................................................................................................... 51

3012 20 Technical D e fic ie n c ie s.................................................................................................... 51

3016 00 P o st-H e arin g ......................................................................................................................................... 51

30 20 00 Stipulated R ecord.................................................................................................................................... 51

30 24 00 Employee Status: Effect on Unfair Labor P ractices.......................................................................... 52

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forum s.............................................................................................. 52

30 32 00 Major Policy Issue R a ise d .................................................................................................................... 52

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: AGENCY ......................................................................................................... 52

35 04 00 G e n e ra l.................................................................................... • ........................................................... 52

35 04 04 Guidance or Directives of Civil Service Commission or A g e n c y ................................ 52

35 04 08 Waiver of Rights Granted by Executive O r d e r ............................................................... 53

35 0412 Management R i g h t s ......................................................... ............................................... 53

}

35 08 00 Section 1 9 (a )(1 )................................................................................................................................... 53

35 08 04 Interference......................................................................................................................... 53

35 08 08 Distribution of L ite r a tu r e .............................................................................................. 57

35 0812 S o lic ita tio n ......................................................................................................................... 57

3512 00 Section 1 9 (a )(2 )........................................................... ....................................................................... 58

3516 00 Section 1 9 (a )(3 )................................................................................................................................... 59

35 20 00 Section 1 9 (a )(4 )................................................................................................................................... 59

35 24 00 Section 1 9 (a )(5 )................................................................................................................................... 59

35 28 00 Section 1 9 (a )(6 )................................................................................................................................... 60

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining R e q u e s t.......................... ..... ................................................... 60

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer G en erally ......................................................................... 61

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or P ro ced u res................................................ 62

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion R e p re se n ta tio n ............................................... 62

35 28 20 Uncompromising A ttitu d e .............................................................................................. 62

35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive T a c tic s ......................................................................................... 63

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment ................................ 63

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive R epresentative............................................................................... 64

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish In fo rm a tio n .................................................................................... 64

35 32 00 Section 1 9 ( d ) ........................................................................................................................................ 65

40 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: LABOR O R G A N IZA TIO N .................................................................... 65

40 04 00 G e n e ra l................................................................................................................................................... 65

40 08 00 Section 1 9 (b )(1 )................................................................................................................................... 65

4012 00 Section 1 9 (b )(2 )................................................................................................................................... 65

4016 00 Section 1 9 (b )(3 )................................................................................................................................... 65

40 20 00 Section 1 9 (b )(4 )................................................................................................................................... 66

Page
40 24 00 Section 1 9 (b )(5 ).................................................................................................................................... 66

40 28 00 Section 1 9 (b )(6 ) .................................................................................................................................... 66

403200 Section 1 9 ( c ) ............................................................... - ....................................................................... 66

45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES: UNFAIR LABOR P R A C T IC E S ................................ 66

45 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of R em ed ies..................................................................................... 66

45 08 00 Advice of Compliance . .....................................................................................................................

45 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and O r d e r s ................................................................ 66

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper C o n d u ct.......................................................................................................... 66

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or Distribution of L ite ra tu re ................................................ 66

4516 08 Discrimination . ............................................................................................................... 68

45 16 12 Assisting a Labor Organization.......................................................................................... 68

45 16 16 Refusal to Accord Appropriate R e c o g n itio n ............................................................... 68

45 16 20 Failure^ to Consult, Confer or N e g o tia te ..................................................................... 69

45 20 00 j. Jurisdictional Q u e s tio n s ....................................................................................................................

50 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES . . 70

50 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of R em edies.................................................................................... 70

50 08 00 Advice of C om pliance......................................................................................................................... 71

50 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and O rders..................................................................... 71

50 16 00 Remedies for Improper C o n d u ct.............................................................................................. ..... • 71

5016 04 Interference......................................................................................................................... 71

50 16 08 Harassment of Employee in Performance of D u tie s ..................................................... 71

5016 12 Inducing Management to Coerce an Em ployee............................... ............................... 71

501616 Strike A c tiv ity ................................................................................................................... 71

5016 20 D iscrim ination................................................................................................................... 71

50 16 24 Failure to Consult, Confer or N eg o tiate ......................................................................... 71

5016 28 Denial of M em b ersh ip ................................................................................................... 71

55 00 00 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.............................................................................................................................. 72

55 04 00 Effect on Representation and Unfair Labor Practice C a s e s .......................................................... 72

55 08 00 P ro c e d u re ............................................................................................................................................. 72

55 08 04 Ju risd ictio n ........................................................................................................................ 72

55 03 08 Bill of R i g h t s ................................................................................................................... 72

55 0812 E lectio n s......................................................... .................................................................... 72

55 12 00 B;11 of R ig h ts ........................................................................................................................................ 72

55 12 04 Equal R i g h t s ................................................................................................................... 72

55 12 08 Freedom of Speech............................................................................................................. 72

55 12 12 Dues, Initiation Fees and A ssessm ents..................... .................................................... 73

55 12 16 Protection of the Right to S u e ......................................................................................... 73

55 12 20 Safeguards Against Improper Disciplinary A ctio n .......................................................... 73

60 00 00 GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY......................................................................................................... 73

60 04 00 1 3 (a )........................................................................................................................................................ 73

60 08 00 1 3 (b )........................................................................................................................................................ 73

6012 00 1 3 (c )........................................................................................................................................................ 73

60 16 00 1 3 (d )........................................................................................................................................................ 73

60 20 00 1 3 (e )........................................................................................................................................................ 73

TABLE OF DECISIONS—ALPHABETICAL L IS T IN G .................................................................................................... 75

TABLES OF DECISIONS — NUMERICAL LISTING, DATES

OF ISSUANCE AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED.............................................................................................. 85

TABLE OF REPORTS ON RULINGS, DATES OF ISSUANCE

AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED...........................................................................................................................105

Page

INDEX 107

Vi
PREFACE

This revised edition of the Digest and Index (DI) contains

digests of all published decisions of the Assistant Secretary of

Labor for Labor-Management Relations (A/S) pursuant

to Executive Order 11491, from January 1, 1970 to June

30, 1974.

The Digest section summarizes significant decisional mate*

rial ^ d is arranged in a functional classification under major

headings and subheadings, listed in the Table of Contents.

It covers: (1) decisions after formal hearing or stipulated

record; (2) Reports on Rulings of the A/S on requests for

review of field-level actions; and (3) those rulings of the

Federal Labor Relations Council which remanded cases to

the A/S or modified his decisions.

Executive Order 11491 was amended, effective November

24, 1971 .and the Regulations,of the A/S were revised, effective October IS, 1972. Accordingly, careful attention should

be given to the possible impact of the changes in the Order

or the Regulations on decisional material in cases filed prior

to such changes.

The full text of A/S decisions has been published in bound

volumes entitled “Decisions and Reports on Rulings of the

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations Pursuant to Executive Order 11491.” Past decisions may

also be read at any Area Office of the Labor-Management

Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor.

The Dl is intended as a guide to material in the A/S’s published decisions but should not be used as a substitute for

the full text of such decisions, nor should its contents be

construed as official pronouncements or interpretations of

the A/S.

vtt

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA

AC Petition

ALJ

AO

ARD

A/S

A/SLMR No.

CU Petition 

DI

EO

Area Administrator, Labor-Management FLRC 

Services Administration, U.S. Department FLRC No. 

of Labor

Amendment of Recognition or Certification GS 

Petition HE

Administrative Law Judge (formerly Hearing Examiner) LMSA 

Area Office, Labor-Management Services LMWP 

Administration

Assistant Regional Director for Labor- NE 

Management Services (formerly Regional OFLMR 

Administrator, Labor-Management Services 

Administration)

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor- RA 

Management Relations 

Assistant Secretary, for Labor-Management 

Relations Decision Number

Clarification of Unit Petition RA Petition

Digest and Index of Published Decisions of 

the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor- R A/S No. 

Management Relations

Executive Order 10988 where indicated; Regs 

otherwise references are to Executive Order 

11491 in cases filed prior to 11-24-71, and Sec 

to Executive Order 11491, as amended, sub- ULP 

sequent thereto WB

Federal Labor Relations Council

Federal Labor Relations Council Decision

Number

General Schedule

Hearing Examiner (Title changed to Administrative Law Judge)

Labor-Management Services Administration 

Office of Labor-Management and WelfarePension Reports 

No entry for period covered 

Office of Federal Labor-Management Relations, Labor-Management Services Administration

Regional Administrator, Labor-Management 

Services Administration; now referred to as 

Assistant Regional Director for LaborManagement Services

Agency Doubt as to Representative’s Status 

Petition

Report on Ruling of the Assistant Secretary 

Number

Regulations of the Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Labor-Management Relations 

Section

Unfair Labor Practice 

Wage Board

ix

DIGEST

05 04 00

05 00 00

GENERAL PROVISIONS

05 04 00

Definitions (Alphabetically Listed)

(See also 20 20 00,

tions”)

‘Employee Categories and ClassificaDefunctness.

Exclusive Representative is “defunct” when it is unwilling 

or unable to represent employees in exclusively recognized 

or certified unit. However, mere temporary inability to function, standing alone, does not establish defunctness. Evidence 

to establish defunctness is limited to those facts which predate 

filing of Petition and those facts, which although occurring 

after filing, constitute integral part of events predating Petition. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 173)

Labor Organization.

Air Traffic Control Association is labor organization 

within meaning of Sec. 2(e) of EO. Despite inclusion of 

supervisors as members, it does not fall within exclusions 

of Sec. 2(e)(1), which is construed to apply to organization 

comprised entirely of supervisors and/or management officials. (PATCO, A/SLMR No. 10)

The Association of HEW Hearing Examiners is not labor 

organization within meaning of Sec. 2(e)(1) of EO inasmuch 

as it consists solely of supervisors. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings 

and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 142)

Management Official.

A/S adopted following definition for term “Management 

Official”, used, but not defined, in EO:

When used in connection with the Executive Order, the 

term ‘management official’ means an employee having authority to make, or to influence effectively the making of, 

policy necessary to the agency or activity with respect to 

personnel, procedures, or programs. In determining whether 

a given individual influences effectively policy decisions in 

this context, consideration should be concentrated on whether 

his role is that of an expert or professional rendering resource 

information or recommendations with respect to policy in 

question, or whether his role extends beyond this to the point 

of active participation in the ultimate determination as to 

what the policy in fact will be. (Engineering Development 

Cntr., Arnold Air Force Sta., Tenn., A/SLMR No. 135)

Professional Association.

Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. is not a labor organization within meaning of Sec. 2(e) of EO, as it has materially 

changed its organization and operations since the issuance 

of A / SLMR No. 10, and its current relationship with Activity 

is consisterit with that permitted a professional association

under Section 7(d)(3) of the Order. (FAA, Atlantic ATC 

Tower, Ga., A/SLMR No. 300)

Professional Employee.

In abjsence of specific definition of “professional” employee 

in EO, to effectuate purposes of EO, A/S established that, 

for purpose of unit placement, a professional employee is:

(A) Any employee engaged in the performance of work;

(1) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of 

science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged 

course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an 

institution of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished 

from knowledge acquired by a general academic education, 

or from an apprenticeship, or from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes; (2) 

requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment 

in its performance; (3) which is predominately intellectual 

and varied in character (as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical or physical work); and (4) which is of such 

a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period 

of time; or

(B) Any employee who has completed the courses of specialized intellectual instruction and study described in clause 

(A) above and is performing related work under the direction or guidance of a professional person to qualify himself 

to become a professional employee as defined in clause (A) 

above. (Interior, Bureau of Land Mgt, Riverside District and 

Land Office, Cal., A/SLMR No. 170)

Supervisors.

FLRC set aside the decision of A/S in A/SLM R No. 120,

and remanded case to A/S for appropriate action based on 

its finding that supervisory status was intended to be determined on basis of individual’s authority, not on basis of precise number of subordinates. Accordingly, A/S may not 

resolve questions of supervisory status solely upon basis that 

alleged supervisor has only one subordinate. (FLRC No. 

72A-4).

Pursuant to FLRC No. 72A-4, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A/SLMR No. 120 and concluded that GS-12 Research Chemist who effectively evaluated performance of 

one other employee is supervisor. (A/SLMR No. 268)

A/S original holding in A/SLMR No. 120 was that Professional Research Chemist, whose authority over other 

employees was limited to effectively evaluating performance 

of only one employee, was not supervisor, which term EO 

defines as employee having authority over other employees, 

in plural form. (Agriculture, Northern Mktg and Nutrition 

Research, Peoria, 111., A/SLMR No. 120)

FLRC set aside the decision of A/S in A/SLMR No. 121, 

and remanded case to A/S for appropriate action based on 

its finding that supervisory status was intended to be on basis 

of precise number of subordinates. Accordingly, A/S may 

not resolve questions of supervisory status solely upon basis
05 08 00

that alleged supervisor has only one subordinate. (FLRC 

No. 72A-2).

Pursuant to FLRC No. 72A-2, A/S reviewed previous 

finding in A/SLMR No. 121 and issued revised findings.

A/S original holding in A/SLMR No. 121 was that Procurement Technician, Personnel Equipment and Survival 

Technician and the Personnel Technician had either only 

one or no employees reporting to them and that they, therefore, could not be considered supervisors within the meaning 

of Section 2(c) of the Order. (N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

FLRC remanded Naval Weapons Cntr., China Lake, Cal,

A/SLM R No. 128 to A/S for action consistent with FLRC 

decision that: (1) any individual who possesses the authority 

•to perform a single function described in Sec. 2(c) of EO, 

provided he does so in a manner requiring use of independent 

judgment, is supervisor; and (2) mere review or approval of 

a recommendation by higher ranking official does not, in 

itself, render recommendation ineffective; rather, A/S must 

examine nature and scope of review to determine effectiveness of the recommending authority within meaning of 

Sec. 2(c), (FLRC No. 72A-11). (Naval Weapons Cntr., 

China Lake, Cal., A/SLMR No. 297)

FLRC remanded Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo,

Cal., A/SLM R No. 129 to A/S for action consistent with 

FLRC decision that, with respect to the definition of “supervisor” in Sec. 2(c) of EO, the modifying terms utilized in 

A /S’s decision, e.g., “formal” discipline, “permanent” transfer, “formal” grievances, and “sufficient” authority, are 

contrary to the literal language and purposes of Sec. 2(c) 

and may not be relied upon (FLRC No. 72A-12). (Mare 

Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Cal., A/SLMR No. 298)

Employees who exercise supervisory authority solely over 

military personnel who are engaged in performance of their 

military duties are supervisors and excluded from bargaining 

unit. In determining supervisory status, duties performed by 

alleged supervisor, and not type of personnel working under 

alleged supervisor, are determinative, and it is immaterial 

whether supervisory authority is exercised over unit employees, non-unit employees, or persons who, as in subject 

case, may not be “employees” as defined in Sec. 2(b) of EO. 

(McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, A/SLMR No. 134)

(See also entry in this Section “Supervisors”, A/SLMR 

No. 120, for bearing of FLRC No. 72A-4 on this case). 

Employees are not supervisors within the meaning of EO 

where their authority is limited to one employee. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

185; Interior, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation 

Cntr., Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 204)

County Supervisors, whose job functions and responsibilities are supervisory in nature, are supervisors, despite fact 

that they have only one subordinate, where there is substantial fluidity in staffing pattern in Activity’s County offices 

precipitated by employee transfers, opening of new offices, 

and vacancies not yet filled resulting from resignations, retirements and separations, and where staffing pattern for all 

but two of 69 County Supervisors authorizes in excess of one 

subordinate. However, those County Supervisors who do not 

have reasonable expectancy of having more than one subordinate and those whose office has never been staffed by 

more than one subordinate, are not supervisors. (Agriculture, 

Farmers Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 205)

Aircraft Loadmaster (Instructor), GS-9, who exercises 

supervisory authority only over non-civilian, active-duty reservists, is supervisor inasmuch as supervisory status is determined by duties performed rather than by type of subordinate 

personnel. (926th Tactical Airlift Gp., Naval Air Sta., Belle 

Chasse, La., A/SLMR No. 221)

In determining supervisory status, it is immaterial whether 

supervisory authority involved is exercised over unit employees, non-unit employees, or over “persons” such as military personnel who are not “employees” within the meaning 

of Sec. 2(b) of EO. (Army Base Command, Okinawa, 

A/SLMR No. 243)

Unit.

Single employee unit is not appropriate for purposes of 

exclusive recognition since all references to units in EO and 

Regs, are to “employees,” indicating that units of more than 

one employee were contemplated. (R A/S No. 44)

05 08 00

Coverage of Executive Order

National Guard Technicians employed by Activity administered by State Adjutant General, who is State employee, are 

covered by EO because: (1) they were made Federal employees by National Guard Technicians Act of 1968; and, 

(2) Dept, of Defense agrees they are covered since Activity’s 

Adjutant General acts as agent for Secretaries of Army and 

Air Force, whose labor relations policies clearly provide for 

applicability of EO and require State Adjutant General to 

insure compliance therewith. (Miss. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR 

No. 20)

A/S has not estabished policy regarding agencies granting 

employees leave to attend hearing held pursuant to EO and 

moreover, such question not appropriately raised in context 

of representation case. (Bureau of Customs, Region V, New 

Orleans, La., A/SLMR No. 65)

Although Attorneys of Office of Regional Counsel, Western Region, advise certain employees of Internal Revenue 

Service, Western Region, which employees have been excluded by head of Agency from coverage of EO under Sec. 

3(b)(4), Attorneys themselves are not excluded under that 

Sec. in absence of evidence to indicate that head of Agency 

had made specific Sec. 3(b)(4) determination to exclude 

Attorneys. (Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, Western 

Region, A/SLMR No. 161)

Sec. 10(b)(2) of EO provision for exclusion of employees 

engaged in Federal personnel work in other than purely 

clerical capacity is no basis to conclude that all employees 

of CSC were intended to be excluded from coverage of EO, 

inasmuch as CSC employees who perform personnel work 

in connection with employees who are employed outside

claimed unit are not subject to potential conflict of interest 

and responsibility which Sec. 10(b)(2) is intended to cover. 

(St. Louis Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Agency employees located in Panama Canal Zone excluded from unit, where Agency head, pursuant to Sec. 3(c) 

of EO, determined it was in national interest to suspend 

applicable provisions of EO for such employees. (FAA, 

A/SLMR No. 173)

Sec. 3(b)(3) is basis for exclusion from EO coverage of 

Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Division employees 

pursuant to requisite statement of Secretary of Treasury. 

(IRS, Birmingham District, Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Members of Commissioned Officer Corps of United States 

Public Health Service are not civilian Federal employees
05 20 00

within meaning of Title 5 of the United States Code and are 

not covered by EO. (HEW, HSMHA, Metropolitan Wash.,

' D.C., A/SLMR No. 192)

Although supervisors are not excluded from coverage 

under EO, Sec. 7(d)(1) does not confer rights upon supervisors enforceable under Sec. 19(a). (IRS, Chicago District,

111., A/SLMR No. 279 and IRS, Western Service Center, 

Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 280)

A/S affirmed ALJ’s finding that Sec. 10(e) rights do not 

flow to supervisors. (IRS, Chicago District, 111., A/SLMR 

No. 279 and IRS, Western Service Center, Ogden, Utah, 

A/SLMR No. 280)

Sec. 10(e) imposes ongoing obligation upon exclusive representative to represent interests of unit employees who is 

subject of adverse action until such time as he has indicated 

his desire to choose his own representative pursuant to EO 

Sec. 7(d)(1). (Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky., 

A/SLMR No. 400)

A/S affirmed ALJ finding that EO Sec. 7(d) confers no 

rights upon employees, organizations or associations enforceable under EO Sec. 19, but merely delineates those instances 

in which employees may choose a representative other than 

their exclusive representative in certain grievance or appellate 

actions. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 403)

Agency head’s determination to exclude Audit Division 

employees from coverage of EO pursuant to Sec. 3(b)(4) on 

grounds that EO could not be applied to such employees in 

manner consistent with internal security of Agency, was not 

arbitrary or capricious and accordingly, representation petition covering requested employees dismissed. (NASA Mgt. 

Audit Office, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 125)

FLRC reviewed R A /S No. 18 and held that Agency 

head’s findings as to internal security functions of organizational group involved are subject to review by A/S to determine whether such findings were arbitrary or capricious. 

A /S’s contrary decision in Area Office Case No. 46-1848 

set aside and case remanded to A/S for appropriate action. 

(NASA Audit Division, Wash., D.C., FLRC No. 70A-7) 

Decision by Agency head to exclude certain segments of 

his organization from coverage of EO, pursuant to Sec. 

3(b)(4) of EO, is not reviewable by A/S. (R A/S No. 18)

FLRC reviewed R A /S No. 27. FLRC held that A/S lacks 

authority to review Agency head’s determination under Sec. 

3(b)(3), but must have explicit statement that Agency head 

assured himself of facts related to, and personally decided 

on Sec. 3(b)(3) exclusion. Since record was unclear as to 

Agency head’s fulfillment of requirements, case was remanded to A/S to obtain requisite statement from Agency 

head and for further appropriate action. (Naval Electronic 

Systems Command Activity, Boston, Mass., FLRC No. 

71A-12)

Decision by Agency head to exclude certain employees 

from coverage of EO pursuant to Sec. 3(b)(3) of EO is not 

reviewable by A/S. (R A/S No. 27).

Jurisdiction will be asserted over complaint by employee 

of Activity which is part of legislative branch alleging 

improper removal from position as official of labor organization, where such labor organization also represents 

employees of the executive branch. (R A/S No. 36)

05 12 00

Evidence

05 12 04

Request for LMSA Documents and LMSA Personnel at

Hearings.

LMSA personnel may not testify during representation or 

unfair labor practice proceedings unless party desiring to use 

LMSA agent as its witness has addressed written request, 

with supportive reasons, to A/S, and has received his authorization based on determination that such evidence will 

effectuate purposes of EO. (R A/S No. 34)

Production of LMSA Documents during representation 

or unfair labor practice proceeding is barred unless party 

desiring such production on its behalf has addressed written 

request, with supportive reasons, to A/S, and received his 

authorization based on determination that such evidence will 

effectuate purposes of EO. (R A/S No. 34)

05 12 08

Admissibility at Hearings.

HO had erroneously permitted Activities’ representative 

to introduce into evidence his written opening statement containing certain matters of fact. A/S considered the matters 

of fact contained in the statement to have no probative value 

because they were introduced without being subject to crossexamination. (Agriculture, Schenck Civilian Conservation 

Cntr., N.C., A/SLMR No. 116)

Oral evidence concerning the contents of a document is 

admissible where it is shown that document has been lost 

or destroyed. (Western Division of Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, Cal., A/SLMR No. 264)

Document which came into existence more than one year 

prior to the filing of the complaint may serve as the basis 

for finding of violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) where it is shown to 

have remained in existence, and accessible, within nine 

months prior to the filing of the complaint and within six 

months of the charge since the unfair labor practice continued and therefore was in effect within the limitation period 

of Sec. 203.2 of the Regs. (Western Division of Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 264)

HO, over Intervenor’s objections, allowed Petitioner to 

introduce into evidence a number of handwritten statements 

which were offered through two witnesses who claimed that 

the statements had been handed to them personally and that 

they personally knew the authors. A/S found such statements 

to have little or no probative value because of the general 

conclusionary language contained in them and the authors 

of the statements were not subject to cross-examination. 

(Interior, Fort Apache Agency, Phoenix, Ariz., A/SLMR 

No. 363)

05 16 DO

Advisory Opinions

A/S will not render advisory opinions. Decisions will be 

made only in cases pending under EO and Regs. (R A/S 

No. 15)

05 20 00

Concurrent Related Cases

Alleged violations of Standards of Conduct must be processed pursuant to procedures contained in Part 204 of Regs.,
05 36 00

rather than Part 202, which deals with representation matters. 

(R A/S No. 9)

Compaints of violations of Standards of Conduct will not 

delay processing of concurrent representation case. (R A/S 

No. 9)

Processing of CU Petition is not “blocked” by ULP Complaint since “blocking” procedure was designed to assure 

that election would not be conducted in unit with unresolved 

ULP. CU Petition does not result in election. (AAFES, DixMcGuire Consolidated Exchange, Fort Dix, N.J., A/SLMR 

No. 195)

HO erred in attempting to elicit evidence from witness 

regarding pending investigation concerning Labor Organization’s alleged violation of Standards of Conduct during hearing on appropriateness of units. Evidence on Standards of 

Conduct should be obtained in accordance with Sec. 204 of 

Regs., rather than in proceeding under Sec. 202. (Savanna 

Army Depot, and AMC Ammunition Cntr., Savanna, 111., 

A/SLMR No. 228)

05 24 00

Role of NLRB Decisions

Decisions of NLRB, along with experience in other jurisdictions, will be considered by A/S but will not be binding 

precedent under EO. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., 

A/SLMR No. 1)

05 28 00

Service

Motion to disregard opposing party’s brief granted, where 

copy was not served on other party pursuant to A/S Regs. 

(AAFES, MacDill AFB Consolidated Exchange, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 29)

Failure to serve intervening Unions with attachments to 

petition is not grounds for dismissal of petition where Intervenors did receive petition and participated in subsequent 

hearing, without having raised procedural objections with 

AA prior to hearing. (Army Engineer District, Mobile, Ala., 

A/SLMR No. 206)

Failure to serve copy of Petition for District-wide unit on 

incumbent exclusive representative of subdivision of District 

does not warrant dismissal where officer and members of 

incumbent Union were aware of Petition, posted throughout 

Activity, but incumbent Union failed to intervene timely or 

raise objections prior to hearing. (Army Engineer District, 

Mobile, Ala., A/SLMR No. 206)

Request for dismissal of Petition, based on lack of simultaneous service of Petition on Intervenor, denied where Intervenor is not and has never been exclusive representative 

of employees in claimed unit and there is no evidence that 

Petitioner should have been aware of Intervenor as interested party at time Petitioner filed. (Air Force, NAF Activities, Tyndall AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 226)

Petitioner not obligated under Reg. Sec. 202.2(e)(4) to 

make simultaneous service of petition where: (1) no interested parties were designated by the Petitioner on its petition; 

and (2) all the affected incumbent locals intervened timely 

and participated fully in the proceeding of the case, thereby 

suffering no prejudice as a result of not having been served 

simultaneously with the petition. (GSA, Region 9, San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 333)

Dismissal of petition based on alleged non-compliance 

with Section 7(b) of the Order and Sec. 2 0 2 .2(a)(6) of the 

A /S’s Regs, unwarranted where Petitioner[s] failed to simultaneously serve the Activity upon filing petition, a current 

roster of its officers and representatives, a copy of its constitution and by-laws, and a statement of its objectives, since 

Activity was subsequently served with subject documents 

and where, as noted, the A /S’s Regs, do not specifically require that such documents be served simultaneously with the 

filing of a petition. (Naval Air Station, Memphis, Millington, 

Tenn., A/SLMR No. 346)

Failure to serve copies of (1) objections to election on 

other parties pursuant to Sec. 202.20(a) of Regs., and (2) 

request for review on ARD or other parties pursuant to 

Sec. 202.6(d) of Regs., and to furnish statements of service 

of such documents, is proper grounds for both dismissal of 

objections and denial of request for review. (R A/S No. 14)

Petitioner failed to make simultaneous service of copy of 

petition pursuant to Sec. 202.2(e)(3), where it did not serve 

incumbent exclusive representative until one week after filing 

with AA and service on Activity and, accordingly, dismissal 

of petition was proper. (R A /S No. 45)

05 32 00

Transitional Problems

Where original election proceedings were conducted and 

objections to runoff election were filed under EO 10988, and 

subsequent hearing on objections was conducted under EO 

11491, A/S adopted ALJ’s recommendations overruling objections and returned case to Activity for appropriate action. 

(VA Hospital, Downey, 111., A/SLMR No. 81)

Various transitional problems arising from cases initiated 

before EO 11491’s effective date and generally having no 

applicability to cases initiated subsequent to issuance of Regs, 

on February 4, 1970, were decided in-R A/S Nos. 1-6.

05 36 00

Official Time

FLRC set aside the decision of A/S in A /SLM R No. 139

and remanded case to A/S for appropriate action based on 

its finding that Agency refusal to grant official time to union 

witnesses for participation at formal unit determination 

hearing was not violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO (FLRC 

No. 72A-20)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 72A-20, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A/SLM R No. 139 and concluded that Agency 

refusal to grant official time to union witnesses for participation at formal unit determination hearing was not violative 

of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO. (Navy Dept, and Navy Weapons Sta., 

Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No. 307)

A/S holding in Navy Dept, and Navy Weapons Sta Yorktown, Va.. A/SLM R No. 139, was that Agency refusal to 

grant official time to union witnesses for participation at formal unit determination hearing violated Sec 19(a)(1) of EO.

FLRC set aside the decision of A/S in A/SLM R No 256

and remanded case to A/S for appropriate action based on 

Its finding that Agency refusal to grant official time to union 

witnesses for participation at formal unit determination hearing was not violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO (FLRC No 

73A-18) X N o .

Pursuant to FLRC No. 73A-18, A/S reversed previous 

finding m A/SLM R No. 256 and concluded that Agency 

refusal to grant official time to union witnesses for participa4
10 0416

tion at formal unit determination hearing was not violative

of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO. (Reserve Command HQ., Camp

McCoy, Sparta, Wise., 102nd Reserve Conunand, St. Louis,

Mo., A/SLMR No. 306)

A/S holding in Reserve Command HQ., Camp McCoy,

Sparta, Wise,, 102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, Mo.,

A/SLM R No. 256 was that Agency refusal to grant official

time to union witnesses for participation at formal unit

determination hearing violated Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO.

A/S noted that the FLRC in the Decision on Appeal in

Navy Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va.,

A/SLM R No. 139, FLRC No. 72A-20, found that the EO

does not require agencies to grant official time to union witnesses at formal unit determination hearings. Pursuant to

the FLRC’s Decision, A/S indicated that based on his experience and because there was an established need, he

intended to promulgate a regulation granting official time

status to necessary witnesses at all types of formal hearings

held under Sec. 6(a)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the EO. Moreover, A/S indicated that regulation promulgated will include

provision for official time for authorized representaton election observers, inasmuch as employees acting as official observers facilitate his responsibilities under EO to supervise

elections and to assure that elections are conducted in a.

fair and impartial manner. (IRS, Fresno, Calif., A/SLMR

No. 309)

In view of FLRC’s decision to set aside A/S findings of

violation in A /SLM R Nos. 149 and 256, A/S dismissed

complaint in Army, Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth,

N.J., A/SLM R No. 281 concerning refusal to make available

on official time necessary witnesses at formal unit determination hearings. (Army, Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 320)

10 00 00

REPRESENTATION CASES:

PRELIMINARY STAGES

10 04 00

Types of Petitions: Procedure

(For substantive matters on petitions see: 20 00 00, “Representation Unit Determinations”; 25 20 00, “Certification

of Unit”; and 25 24 00, “Amendment of Recognition or

Certification”).

10 04 04

Representation, Filed by Labor Organization (RO)

No entries.

10 04 08

Agency Doubt as to Representative’s Status (RA)

Activity’s CU petition treated as petition for election to

determine if labor organization should cease to be exclusive

representative (RA petition) since it was clear that Activity

intended to raise question concerning representation and

since sole procedure and appropriate vehicle for agency or

activity to raise question concerning representation is RA

petition. (HQ., Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis,

Mo., A/SLMR No. 160)

RA Petition rather than CU Petition, is appropriate vehicle

to seek determination of contention that recognized unit is

no longer appropriate due to reorganization. (HUD, Indianapolis, Ind., Area Office, A/SLMR No. 202)

On Activity’s RA Petition, evaluation of total evidence

established its good faith doubt as to exclusive representative’s

continued majority status and, accordingly, election was

directed. (FAA, Chicago Airports District Office, 111.,

A/SLMR No. 250)

Where Activity petitioned for election in a unit of all of

its eligible electronic and electro-mechanical technicians,

including such technicians represented on an exclusive basis

by the lAM, on the grounds that a recent reorganization of

its operations had rendered lAM unit inappropriate, the

A/S found that the lAM unit remained intact after the

reorganization and continued to be appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition. (DOT, SW Region, Tulsa

Airway Facilities Sector, Tulsa, Okla., A/SLMR No. 364)

RA petition not appropriate and CU appropriate where

accretion has occurred and therefore, petition does not raise

question concerning representation. (VA Hospital, Columbia,

S.C., A/SLMR No. 368)

Activity-wide unit appropriate and election directed where

scope and character of former exclusively recognized units

had been substantially changed. (Idaho Panhandle National

Forests, Agric., A/SLMR No: 394)

10 04 12

Decertification of Representative Filed by Employee(s) (DR)

No agreement bar found to decertification petition and

election ordered. (VA Cntr., Togus, Me., A/SLMR No. 317)

Agreement bars DR petition filed other than during 60-90

day period prescribed in Sec. 202(3)(c) of Regs, when there

is no evidence of unusual circumstances substantially affecting unit or the status of the recognized exclusive representative. (Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado

Region, A/SLMR No. 318)

Processing of decertification petition found unnecessary

where exclusive recognition of labor organization “B”, sought

to be decertified, was invalid because: (1) Activity had agreement for exclusive recognition with labor organization “A”;

(2) during insulated period of such agreement. Activity

granted exclusive recognition to labor organization “B” and

did so without holding secret ballot election required by

agency regulations under EO 10988. (HEW, SSA, Albany

District Office, Albany, N.Y. A/SLMR No. 70)

In decertification proceeding, incumbent labor organization’s disclaimer of interest in representing unit of employees

is not inconsistent with its continued organizational activity

among such employees as part of larger unit. Accordingly,

decertification petition was dismissed properly. (R A /S

No. 10)

10 04 16

Clarification of Unit (CU)

CU petition is vehicle by which parties may seek to illuminate and clarify unit inclusions or exclusions of various

employees after basic question of representation has been

resolved. CU petition is not proper vehicle to question appropriateness of unit or resolve issue of whether unit employees

desire to continue to be represented exclusively. (HQ., Army

Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No.

160, and AAFES, Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange,

Fort Dix, N.J., A/SLMR No. 195)
10 12 00

It would not effectuate purposes of EO to clarify a unit 

where job classifications sought to be added to unit exclusions are not filled by employees. (AAFES, Golden Gate 

Exchange Region, Norton AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No. 190)

Certification bar of Sec. 202.3(b) of Regs, is not applicable 

to CU Petition. (AAFES, Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange, Fort Dix, N.J., A/SLMR No. 195)

CU petition held inappropriate for purpose of adding to 

unit categories of employees which previously were specifically excluded by the unit definition, even where the 

categories involved arguably may have been included appropriately within the unit when such unit was established. 

CU petition may be used to resolve uncertainties relating to 

unit inclusions or exclusions of categories of employees, 

when the certified or exclusively recognized unit description 

does not on its face resolve such questions. (Agric., Angeles 

National Forest, Pasadena, Cal., A/SLMR No. 339)

CU petition is appropriate vehicle to clarify existing employee units at Hospital to include those employees previously represented in employee units at outpatient clinic, 

in view of accretion and absence of a question concerning 

representation. (VA Hospital, Columbia, S.C., A/SLMR 

No. 368)

Exclusive recognition granted under EO 10988 may not 

be clarified or amended by mutual agreement of the parties 

without utilizing procedures set forth in A /S’s Regs. EO 

11491 establishes third-party process in Sec. 6(a)(1) to “decide questions as to the appropriate unit for the purpose of 

exclusive recognition and related issues . . .” (R A/S No. 54)

10 04 20

Amendment of Recogjiiition or Certification (AC)

AC petition is proper vehicle when parties seek to conform 

recognition involved to existing circumstances resulting 

from such nominal or technical changes as change in name 

of exclusive representative or change in name or location 

of agency. AC petition is not proper vehicle to question 

appropriateness of unit or to resolve issues concerning 

whether or not unit employees desire to continue to be represented exclusively. (HQ., Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 160)

AC petition is appropriate vehicle for change in name of 

Activity. (AAFES, Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange, 

Fort Dix, N.J., A/SLMR No. 195)

Change in designation of agency or activity or incumbent 

exclusive labor organization, while ordinarily appropriately 

effectuated by AC Petition, may be achieved by CU Petition, 

where exclusive representative was recognized under EO 

10988 and therefore no certification exists. (AAFES, Alamo 

Exchange Region, Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, A/SLMR 

No. 199)

Where labor organization filed CU Petition to change its 

existing recognition to reflect change in designation of Activity, resulting from reorganization of Activity’s operations, 

A/S issued order clarifying unit to reflect current designation 

of Activity but noted that, under current regulations. Petition 

for Amendment of Recognition or Certification (AC Petition), rather than CU Petition, is appropriate vehicle for 

seeking change in designation of Activity. (FAA, Chicago 

Airports District Office, 111., A/SLMR No. 250)

Exclusive recognition granted under EO 10988 may not 

be clarified or amended by mutual agreement of the parties

without utilizing the procedures set forth in A /S’s Regs. 

EO 11491 establishes third-party process in Sec. 6(a)(1) to 

“decide questions as to the appropriate unit for the purpose 

of exclusive recognition and related issues. . • •” A /S 

No. 54)

10 04 24

National Consultation Rights

No Entries

10 08 00

Posting of Notice of Petition

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

Upon Petitioner’s amendment of its original petition, encompassing additional employees, AA properly ordered reposting W notice of petition, and second Petitioner’s petition 

was timely filed during this posting period. (DOT, Fed. Highway Admin., and Bureau of Motor Car Safety, A/SLMR 

No. 98)

Posting of notice of petition in accordance with Sec. 202.4 

of Regs, and as means of notifying potential intervenors is 

essential to implementation of A/S, responsibility under EO. 

Accordingly, without prejudice to right of Activity to challenge appropriateness of unit or coverage of claimed employees under EO, Activity was directed to post notice in 

accordance with Sec.’ 202.4 of Regs. (R A/S No. 29)

10 12 00

Intervention

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

RA’s prior determination with respect to intervention not 

subject to attack at representation hearing. (BIA, Navajo 

Area, N.M., A/SLMR No. 99)

Where incumbent labor organization intervenes in representation proceeding and proceeds to election in overall imit 

encompassing smaller unit(s) in which it already holds exclusive recognition, it will have waived its exclusive recognition status in smaller unit(s) and may continue to represent 

employees in such units on exclusive basis only if it is certified for overall unit. (Army, Dependents’ Schools, European 

Area, A/SLMR No. 260) •

ARD erroneously permitted incumbent labor organization 

to participate in hearing as a “party-in-interest” on basis of 

negotiated agreements between it and the Activity, although 

it did not intervene pursuant to Sec. 202.5(c). Its name was 

omitted from the ballot in self-determination election. (GSA, 

Region 2, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

Late intervention denied absent showing of good cause 

pursuant to Sec. 202.5 of Regs. (R A/S No. 11)

AA may determine disputed ballot position under Sec. 

202.7(c) of Regs, and Sec. 4(f) of Procedural Guide for the 

Conduct of Elections and may dismiss intervention of labor 

organization which declines to sign consent agreement solely 

because of dispute over ballot positions and refuses to allow 

AA to determine such positions. (R A/S No. 37)

Incumbent labor organization, like any other intervenor, 

may intervene only within 10 days after initial date of posting of notice of petition, and any intervention thereafter, in 

absence of good cause for extending period, will be considered untimely. (GSA, Region 10, Interagency Motor Pool 

No. 2, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR No. 146; R A/S No. 43)
10 24 04

10 16 00

Showing of Interest

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

ARD’s prior determination with respect to showing of 

interest not subject to attack at representation hearing. (DSA, 

DCASR Boston-Quality Assurance, A/SLMR No. 34; BIA, 

Navajo Area, N.M., A/SLMR No. 99; VA Hospital, Butler, 

Pa., A/SLMR No. 103)

In seasonal industries, adequate showing of interest may 

be established based on number of employees employed in 

unit at time representation petition is filed. (Bureau of Land 

Mgt., District Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

Challenge to validity of intervening labor organization’s 

showing of interest, although untimely, upheld because strict 

adherence to ten-day challenge period, under the circumstances, would not be consistent with proper effectuation of 

EO in view of nature of challenge, which involved signatures 

of questionable authenticity. (Army Electronics Command, 

Fort Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 216)

Petitions filed by one labor organization for Agency-wide 

unit of employees, and by another labor organization for all 

professional registered nurses employed in Departments of 

Medicine and Surgery of Agency, were dismissed because of 

inadequate showing of interest based on following principles 

enunciated by A/S:

—Petitioning labor organization may not utilize in its 

showing of interest for broad unit, employees in existing unit 

covered by signed agreement which constitutes bar to election.

—^Where agreement bar exists, such bar may not be waived 

unilaterally, and in absence of mutual waiver, petitioning 

labor organization may not utilize showing of interest from 

unit in which bar exists.

—^Where Petitioner seeks unit which encompasses unit or 

units in which it already holds exclusive recognition (but no 

negotiated agreement exists), in order to permit employees 

in such unit or units to be counted for purposes of Petitioner’s showing of interest. Petitioner will be required to waive 

its exclusive recognition status in such unit or units.

—^Where there are agreements which are terminable at 

will or which contain other defects causing such agreements 

not to constitute bars to election sought by third party, 

parties to such agreements are bound by their terms, absent 

affirmative act of termination. In order to utilize employee 

members covered by such agreement for purpose of showing 

of interest, labor organization which is party to agreement 

must affirmatively indicate willingness (a) to terminate that 

agreement prior to election, and (b) to waive its exclusive 

recognition status. (VA, A/SLMR No. 240)

FLRC reversed A /S’s decision in request for review of 

ARD’s dismissal of petition in VA Hospital, Brecksville,

Ohio, Case No. 53-4156, and remanded case for appropriate 

action based on its finding that A /S’s action in precluding 

Agency management involvement in collection of showing 

of interest should be accomplished by procedure based on 

case-by-case determination. Thus, if A/S believes facts show 

Agency management involvement to be of such nature as to 

pervade any subsequently collected showing of interest, he 

could so rule. But, if involvement is isolated, minimal, or 

mitigated, A/S could selectively invalidate the limited portion of showing of interest directly affected by Agency management involvement. (FLRC No. 72A-9)

Challenge to validity of showing of interest of intervenors

must be filed within 10 days after receipt by party of copy

of request for intervention. (R A/S No. 7)

Challenge to validity of petitioner’s showing of interest

untimely, pursuant to Sec. 202.2(0 of Regs., when filed after

10-day notice posting period. (R A/S No. 13)

Request for review of ARD’s dismissal of challenge to

validity of showing of interest will not be entertained by

A /S since Regs, make no provision for such review. (R A /S

No. 21)

Request for review of ARD’s dismissal of petition based 

upon his determination that showing of interest was inadequate will not be entertained by A/S since Regs, make no 

provision for such review (R A /S No. 30)

Showing of interest obtained by solicitation of single signature to dual purpose form bearing two unrelated headings 

inherently is confusing and resultant signatures are unreliable 

and unacceptable as evidence of interest. (R A/S No. 52)

10 20 00

Labor Organization Status

Intervenor’s attempt at hearing to challenge petitioner’s 

status as labor organization improper where: (1) under Sec. 

202.2(g) of Regs., challenge to status must be filed with AA 

within 10 days of initial date of posting of notice of petition 

and such challenge should be supported by evidence; and,

(2) Regs, make no provision for filing request for review of 

ARD’s action dismissing challenge to status of labor organization. (U.S. Mint, Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 45; Military 

Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., A/SLMR No. 177; and 

R A/S Nos. 7, 28)

Dismissal of petition based on alleged non-compliance 

with Sec. 7(b) of the Order and Sec. 202.2(a)(6) of the Regs, 

unwarranted where Petitioner failed to serve simultaneously 

the Activity upon filing petition, a current roster of its officers 

and representatives, a copy of its constitution and by-laws, 

and a statement of its objectives, since Activity subsequently 

was served with subject documents and where, as noted, the 

A /S’s Regs, do not specifically require that such documents 

be served simultaneously with the filing of a petition. (Naval 

Air Station, Memphis, Millington, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 346)

Appropriate challenges to status of labor organization during course of representation proceeding, pursuant to Sec. 

202.2(g) of Regs., do not include challenges based on alleged violations of Standards of Conduct. (R A/S No. 9)

10 24 00

Timeliness of Petition

10 24 04 

Election Bar

Vote by employees in smaller unit against representation 

is no bar to inclusion of such employees in broader unit, 

because the broader unit is not same unit or subdivision of 

unit in which election had been held. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 

173; FAA, A/SLMR No. 122; and 2nd Coast Guard District, St. Louis, A/SLMR No. 93)

Petition found timely filed where “untimeliness” of the 

petition was attributable, not to any gross laxity on the part 

of the Petitioner, but to other factors beyond its control, 

including the misdirection of the petition by the U.S. Postal
10 24 12

Service to another Federal Activity. (Naval Air Station, 

Memphis, Millington, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 346)

10 24 08

Certification Bar

Employees at two schools where certification of representative for separate units has been in effect less than 12 

months are barred by Sec. 202.3(b) of Regs, from inclusion 

in multi-school, Activity-wide unit of similar classifications, 

found to be appropriate. (BIA, Navajo Area, N.M., A/SLMR 

No. 99)

Controlling date for determining whether certification bar 

to petition exists is date petition is filed. (FAA, A/SLMR 

No. 173)

Certification bar of Sec. 202.3(b) of Regs, is not applicable 

to CU Petition. (AAFES, Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange, Fort Dix, N.J., A/SLMR No. 195)

Labor organization considered to have voluntarily waived 

its certification bar with respect to existing powerhouse unit 

when it filed Petition for more comprehensive unit, including powerhouse. (Army Engineer District, Mobile, Ala., 

A/SLMR No. 206)

No certfication bar exists where petition is filed more than 

12 months after certification of exclusive representative. (Pa. 

Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 254; FAA, A/SLMR No. 122)

Existing agreements do not constitute a bar to a CU petition where accretion occurs and CU petition does not raise 

a question concerning representation. (VA Hospital, Columbia, S.C. A/SLMR No. 368)

10 24 12

Agreement Bar

(See also: 10 44 00, ‘Defunctness”)

Agreement covering comprehensive unit at Activity does 

not bar election for unit of powerhouse employees since: (1) 

agreement was executed before subject powerhouse became 

operational and has not since been applied to powerhouse; 

and (2) powerhouse does not constitute addition or accretion 

to existing unit because of separate supervision and lack of 

interchange of personnel. (Army Corps of Engnrs., Mobile 

District, A/SLMR No. 7)

To constitute bar to processing petition, existing agreement 

should contain clearly enunciated fixed term from which any 

person can ascertain, without necessity of relying on other 

factors, appropriate time for filing representation petitions. 

(U.S. Mint, Phila. Pa., A/SLMR No. 45)

Agreement is no bar to processing petition where A/S 

held that existing agreement terminated when party stated its 

desire to renegotiate and therefore, only agreement between 

Activity and incumbent labor organization was oral and 

would not serve as bar. Action of Activity and incumbent 

labor organization in extending agreement and setting fixed 

termination date of January 1, 1970, or “until renegotiations 

were completed” meant that agreement has no fixed term or 

duration after January 1, 1970, and therefore, could not constitute bar to election. (National Cntr for Mental Health 

Services, Training and Research, A/SLMR No. 55)

Prior one-year agreement with automatic renewal clause 

did not bar petition for election where, at time petition filed, 

parties had entered into negotiations but had not consummated new agreement. (GSA, Raritan Depot, Edison, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 66)

No agreement bar exists to decertification petition filed at 

time when agreement previously forwarded for approval is 

returned by higher management for renegotiation at local 

level. Return of agreement for renegotiation removes it from 

status of “awaiting approval at a higher m a n a g e m e n t level.” 

(Army Corps of Engrs., Phila. Pa., A/SLMR No. 80)

Agreement terminable upon 60 days’ notice by either party 

thereto was held to be agreement terminable at will which 

does not constitute bar to processing of petition, as such 

agreement creates uncertainty in collective bargaining inconsistent with agreement bar principles. (VA Cntr., Mountain 

Home, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 89; VA Hospital, Butler, Pa., 

A/SLMR No. 103)

Agreement renewed on annual basis through July 21,

1971, is no bar to petition filed'May 5, 1971, since filing date 

clearly falls within “open period” of Sec. 202.3(c) of Regs. 

(VA Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa., A/SLMR No. 104)

Renegotiation of agreement more than 60 days before its 

scheduled expiration is no bar to petition filed during “open 

period” of existing agreement, pursuant to Sec. 202.3(e) of 

Regs., regardless of whether renegotiation results in new 

agreement or amendment to existing agreement. (VA Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa., A/SLMR No. 104; FAA, A/SLMR 

No. 122)

Ambiguity as to duration of agreement may be corrected 

by parties at any time during term of agreement, but such 

correction may not extend agreement’s duration to detriment 

of employees or labor organizations desiring to file representation petitions. (VA Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa., A/SLMR 

No. 104)

Agreement bar rule of Sec. 202.3(c) or Regs^may not be 

waived unilaterally by one of parties to negotiated agreement. 

(DOD, Overseas Dependent Schools, A/SLMR No. 110)

Where Petitioner for broad unit, such as nationwide unit, 

seeks to include employees who are already represented exclusively in existing, less comprehensive unit, A/S gave consideration to various conditions which existed in the smaller 

units at time broad-unit petition was filed and held, among 

other findings, that:

a. Where there is existing or recently expired agreement and 

petition for broad unit was timely filed in accordance with 

Sec. 202.3(c) of Regs., either in “open period” of existing 

agreement or subsequent to its recent termination, employees in smaller, existing unit will have opportunity to 

vote in self-determination election on whether or not they 

desire to continue to be represented in their unit by their 

current exclusive bargaining representative. If majority 

indicate such desire, their existing unit would remain intact; if majority do not vote for labor organization which 

represents them currently, their ballots would then be 

pooled with those of employees voting in any unit found 

appropriate to result of broad-unit petition.

b. Where there is no collective bargaining history i e smaller unit is not covered by agreement or recently expired 

agreement, question of appropriate unit may be considered without regard to exclusive recognition for smaller 

unit which had been in effect when broad-unit petition 

was filed. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 122)

8
10 24 12

Provision in Sec. 202.3(d) of Regs, for 90-day period free 

from rival claim within which to consummate agreement 

following dismissal or withdrawal of timely-fAed petition 

does not apply to dismissal of untimely petition. (Naval Underwater Systems Cntr., Newport, R.I., A/SLMR No. 127)

Agreement covering areawide unit at Activity does not bar 

petition for unit of motor pool employees, transferred to 

Activity after agreement was executed, as motor pool employees do not constitute addition or accretion to existing 

unit. (GSA, Region 10, Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR No. 146)

Where timely petition was withdrawn on erroneous advice 

of agents of LMSA that it was untimely, A/S treated resubmitted second petition from date of original petition as it 

would be unfair to penalize Petitioner for acting in good 

faith on erroneous advice of LMSA agents. (Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Tex., A/SLMR No. 150)

Formula for computation of 90-60 day open period for 

filing of petitions contained in R A/S No. 38, held not solely 

prospective in nature but rather explicative of earlier existing 

provisions on timeliness, and petition filed on 59th day prior 

to terminal date of agreenient is untimely. (Customs Bureau, 

Region IV. A/SLMR No. 152)

Petition for Region-wide unit is untimely with respect to 

agreement covering exclusive unit of one component District 

of Region but residual unit of all unrepresented employees in 

Region is appropriate. (Customs Bureau, Region IV, A / 

SLMR No. 152)

Controlling date for determining whether agreement bar to 

petition exists is date petition is filed. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 

173)

Agreement negotiated pursuant to exclusive recognition 

granted to nonguard labor organization under EO 10988 

covering combined guard and nonguard unit in one city 

constitutes a bar, insofar as that unit is concerned, to Petition 

covering all guards in Region, and any petition, to be timely 

for the unit covered by the agreement, must be filed in accordance with requirements of Sec. 202.3(c) of Regs. (GSA, 

Region 2, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 220; GSA, Region 9, San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 333)

Negotiated agreement, signed by parties at local level, and 

later recalled from Activity’s headquarters by exclusive representative for “sole reason” of conforming agreement to 

newly issued amendments to EO, is bar to subsequently filed 

Petition. (Savannah Army Depot, and AMC Ammunition 

Cntr., Savanna, 111., A/SLMR No. 228)

Newly established, petitioned for Regional Headquarters, 

resulting from reorganization, which includes some employees previously represented by Petitioner in a unit covered 

by an agreement, does not constitute relocation of former 

unit and agreement is not a bar to petition. (Econ. Development Adm., S.E. Regional Office, Ga., A/SLMR No. 229)

Petition filed during parties’ 60-day extension of basic 

agreement is timely, because such temporary, stopgap agreements do not constitute final fixed-term agreement, and lack 

stability sought to be achieved by agreement bar principle. 

(Holloman AFB, Alamogordo, N.M., A/SLMR No. 235)

Agreement bar principles as set forth in Sec. 202.3(c) of 

Regs, are applicable irrespective of scope of unit sought. 

(VA, A/SLMR No. 240)

Parties to agreement terminable at will, or which contains 

other defects causing such agreement not to constitute bar 

to election sought by third party, are bound by terms of 

agreement, absent affirmative act of termination. (VA, A / 

SLMR No. 240; Bureau of the Mint, A/SLMR No. 262)

Agreement bar rule of Sec. 202.3(c) of Regs, may not be 

waived unilaterally by one party to negotiated agreement. 

(VA, A/SLMR No. 240; Bureau of the Mint, A/SLMR No. 

262)

Where negotiations were not completed for agreement at 

local level and where no signed agreement was in effect when 

petition was filed, there is no agreement bar. (Bureau of the 

Mint, A/SLMR No. 262)

Where an Intervenor asserted that a negotiated agreement 

between the Petitioner and Activity was a bar to the petition, 

A/S found no agreement bar existed as neither the Petitioner 

nor the Activity asserted the agreement as a bar; the scope 

of the agreement was unclear; and the agreement was one of 

indefinite duration because its termination date was unclear. 

(HUD, Region II, A/SLMR No. 270)

Where Petitioner contended an agreement between the 

Activity and Intervenor did not constitute a bar because it 

was negotiated pursuant to exclusive recognition granted subsequent to effective date of EO 11491, without benefit of an 

election, A/S found that, as the granting of such recognition 

occurred more than two years prior to the raising of the 

issue, and as agreement was valid on its face, the Intervenor’s status as exclusive bargaining representative and its 

negotiated agreement were not subject to attack. (HUD, 

Region II, A/SLMR No. 270)

Petitioner found untimely as employees in claimed unit remained in exclusively recognized unit after reorganization 

and negotiated agreement which constituted a bar to Depot 

employees in an earlier case. (Savanna Army Depot, and 

AMC Ammunition Cntr, Savanna, 111., A/SLMR No. 228; 

AMC Ammunition Cntr, Savanna Army Depot, 111., A / 

SLMR No. 291)

Agreement terminable upon 60 days’ notice by either party 

thereto was held to be agreement terminable at will, which 

does not constitute bar to representation petition. (VA Hospital, East Orange, N.J., A/SLMR No. 311)

Negotiated agreement is no bar to decertification petition 

where duration article provides that the agreement will be 

renewed annually unless either party seeks to negotiate modifications of the agreement and the incumbent labor organization makes a timely request. (VA Cntr., Togus, Me., A / 

SLMR No. 317)

Agreement bars DR petition filed other than during 60-90 

day period prescribed in Sec. 202.3(c) of Regs, when there 

is no evidence of unusual circumstances substantially affecting the unit or the status of the recognized exclusive representative of the unit. (Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, A/SLMR No. 318)

Agreement signed four days prior to filing of petition is a 

bar where evidence establishes that parties signing had authority to negotiate and sign, and where agreement signed 

contained substantial and finalized terms and conditions of 

employment to stabilize bargaining relationship. (Air Force, 

321st Combat Support Group, Grand Forks AFB, N.D., 

A/SLMR No. 319)
10 32 00

Noting absence of a collective bargaining history with respect to city-wide unit of all the Activity’s guards and Federal Protective Officers (FPO’s) represented by incumbent 

labor organization, A/S, based on the rationale in Federal

Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, A j

SLMR No. 122, concluded the city-wide unit was inappropriate and included such employees under Regionwide petition for all the Activity’s guards and FPO’s. (GSA, Region 

9, San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 333)

Negotiated agreement covering certain employees in 

claimed unit does not constitute a bar to the inclusion of 

these employees in unit sought as their exclusive representative was defunct at the time petition was filed. (GSA, Region 

2, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

Where RA petition raised issue of whether exclusively recognized units remained appropriate due to substantial change 

in their character and composition because of reorganization, 

A/S found that current negotiated agreements did not constitute bars to filing of RA petition. (Idaho Panhandle National Forests, A/SLMR No. 394)

In determining 90-60 day “open period” prior to “terminal 

date of agreement” for purposes of filing petition pursuant to 

Sec. 202.3(c) of Regs., following guidelines apply: (I) When 

agreement is in effect "through” specified date, such date is 

“terminal date.” (2) When agreement is in effect “to” or 

“until” specified date, day before specified date is “terminal 

date,” unless there is specific contrary provision. (3) When 

agreement is executed on specified date to remain in effect 

for one or two years from execution date, “terminal date” 

in specified year iis day prior to calendar execution date. (4) 

In computing “open period” prior to “terminal date,” that 

date itself, as defined above, is not included in count. (5) 

Petition, to be timely, must be received by appropriate AA 

not later than close of business of 60th day prior to agreement’s “terminal date,” as defined above. (6) If 60th day 

prior to “terminal date” falls on Saturday, Sunday or Federal legal holiday, petition, to be timely, must be received by 

close of business of last official workday preceding 60th day. 

(R A/S No. 38)

10 28 00

Status of Petitioner

Where petitioning labor organization already has exclusive recognition for unit of employees covered by its petition, 

and there is no challenge to its majority status in that unit, 

dismissal of petition is warranted since no question concerning representation exists as to these employees. (Bureau of 

Customs, Region V, New Orleans, La., A/SLMR No. 65; 

DOD Overseas Dependent Schools, A/SLMR No. 110)

Certain Sectors of Activity were included in unit found 

appropriate where exclusive representative of employees in 

these Sectors waived its status in election proceedings. (FAA, 

Airway Facilities Div., Eastern Region, A/SLMR No. 94)

Current exclusive representative at several schools of Activity waived its status in agreeing to inclusion of its units in 

larger, multi-school, Activitywide unit found to be appropriate, and may continue to represent those employees on an 

exclusive basis only if it is certified in the comprehensive 

unit found to be appropriate in the instant case. (BIA, Navajo 

Area, N.M., A/SLMR No. 99)

Union considered to have waived voluntarily its certification bar with respect to existing unit when it filed Petition

for more comprehensive unit. (Army Engineer District, Mobile, Ala., A/SLMR No. 206)

Newly established, petitioned for Regional Headquarters, 

resulting from reorganization, which includes some employees’ previously represented in unit covered by an agreement, 

does not constitute relocation of former unit and agreement 

is not a bar to petition. (Econ. Development Adm., S.E. Regional Office, Ga., A/SLMR No. 229)

Petition for facility-wide unit, filed while same petitioner 

had another petition pending for nationwide unit encompassing employees in the facility-wide unit, does not constitute abuse of administrative process where, at the time of 

filing nationwide unit petition, the petitioned for facility-wide 

unit was covered by a negotiated agreement, which possibly 

may have barred its inclusion in the nationwide unit. (FAA, 

Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Cntr. Fla., A/SLMR 

No. 231; FAA, Richmond ATC Tower, Roanoke ATC 

Tower, and Washington ATC Cntr., Va., A/SLMR No. 232; 

FAA, Minneapolis ATC Cntr., Farmington, Minn., A / 

SLMR No. 233; and FAA, Southern Region, Miami ATC 

Cntr. and Miami ATC Tower, Fla., A/SLMR No. 234)

Where petitioner seeks unit which encompasses unit or 

units in which it already holds exclusive recognition (but no 

negotiated agreement exists), in order to permit employees 

in such unit or units to be counted for purposes of petitioner’s showing of interest, petitioner will be required to waive 

its exclusive recognition status in such unit or units and 

agree, in effect, to risk that recognition in event that it proceeds to election in broad unit and loses. (VA, A/SLMR No. 

240)

By petitioning for exclusive recognition and proceeding to 

election in broad unit sought, petitioner waives its exclusive 

representation status with respect to employees in smaller, 

exclusively recognized units encompassed by petition, and 

may not continue to represent such employees if it loses 

election. (Army Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 83; Navy, Military Sealift Command, A/ 

SLMR No. 245; Pa. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 254).

Petition filed by a *‘technician-in-depth” not defective because A/S found technician-in-depth not to be either management official or supervisor. (FAA, ARTCC, Albuquerque, 

N.M., A/SLMR No. 277)

10 32 00

Qualifications to Represent Specified Categories

of Employees

Petition for unit excluding, among others, guards, filed by 

petitioner whose president is employed by Activity as guard

petition, is dismissed because Sec. 

1(b) of EO does not authorize employees’ participation in 

management of labor organization when such participation 

results in conflict or apparent conflict of interest with employees official duties, and Secs. 10(b)(3) and 10(c) of EO 

prec ude guards from: (1) inclusion in units with nonguard 

employees; and, (2) being represented by labor organizations 

^ ic h admit to membership employees other than guards. 

(VA Hospital, Brockton, Mass., A/SLMR No. 21)

Exclusion from ballot of labor organization which admits 

to membership employees other than guards in election for 

all-guard unit warranted, since EO precludes such organization from being certified as representative of guard emplovees. (U.S. Mint, Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 45; Rocky

10
10 44 00

Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colo., A/SLMR No. 325; Naval 

Station, Newport, R.I., A/SLMR No. 326; GSA, Region- 9, 

San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 333)

Petition, signed by president of petitioning labor organization, who is included in unit, dismissed where he was held 

to be management official, and inclusion of such employee 

would result in conflict of interest within meaning of Sec. 

1(b) of EO. (Engineering Development Cntr., Arnold Air 

Force Sta., Tenn., A/SLMR No. 135)

Attorneys who advise IRS employees, who are represented 

by same labor organization which is petitioning for Attorneys, would not have a “conflict of interest” if labpr organization were to be selected, inasmuch as both groups of employees are employees of same parent organization and work 

together for same overall objectives. (Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 161)

Question of whether Attorneys are precluded from joining, 

or being represented by, labor organization which admits to 

membership non-Attorneys by various canons, codes or opinions of bar associations involves interpretation of such provisions, and such interpretation is neither determinative nor 

within scope of A/S proceeding. Petitioned for Attorneys, 

as professional employees, would be afforded opportunity to 

vote whether they desire to be represented at all and, if so, 

whether in unit limited to professional employees or in more 

comprehensive unit. (Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, 

Western Region, A/SLMR No. 161)

Personnel Management Specialists, Personnel Staffing Specialists, Labor Relations Officer, and Director, Personnel 

Management Training Institute of CSC, who carry out CSC 

responsibilities of Sec. 25(a) of EO, under Sec. 3(d) may not 

be represented by labor organization which represents other 

groups of employees under EO. (St. Louis Region, CSC, 

A/SLMR No. 162)

Agreement negotiated pursuant to exclusive recognition 

granted to nonguard labor organization under EO 10988 

covering combined guard and nonguard unit in one city constitutes a bar to petition covering all guards in Region, and 

any petition, to be timely for the unit covered by the agreement, must be filed in accordance with requirements of Sec. 

202.3(c) of Regs. (GSA, Region 2, New York, N.Y., 

A/SLMR No. 220)

Petitioner ineligible under Sec. 24(2) of EO to represent 

unit of Chief Quartermasters who were found to be supervisors, where, although petitioner historically and traditionally 

has represented management officials and supervisors in private industry, it did not represent exclusively units of such 

management officials or supervisors in Federal sector on date 

EO became effective. (Nat’l. Ocean Survey, Pacific Marine 

Cntr. and Atlantic Marine Cntr., A/SLMR No. 222)

In absence of affirmative vote in election of guards for 

labor organization requesting unit of guards, the existing 

mixed unit and representation thereof may continue. (Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colo., A/SLMR No. 325; Naval 

Station, Newport, R.I., A/SLMR No. 326)

Pursuant to Secs. 10(b)(3) and 10(c) of EO, neither filing 

of instant petition nor direction of election herein terminated 

existing mixed unit and existing collective bargaining relationship. (Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colo., A/SLMR 

No. 325)

Where severance of guard employees from mixed unit of 

guard and nonguard employees represented by nonguard 

labor organization is found warranted, the incumbent nonguard labor organization will not be placed on the ballot. 

However, if the guard employees did not vote for the petitioning guard labor organization as their exclusive representative, they will be viewed to have indicated their desire to 

remain in the existing mixed unit represented by the incumbent nonguard labor organization. (GSA, Region 3, Wash., 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 347)

A guard may not serve as the president of a nonguard 

labor organization which represented a unit of guards and 

two units of nonguards at the same Activity, as, in this context, for a guard to participate in the management of such a 

labor organization would give rise to a conflict or apparent 

conflict of interest and would be incompatible with his official duties within the meaning of Sec. 1(b) of EO. (Army 

Materiel Command, Tooele Army Depot, Utah, A/SLMR 

No. 406)

10 36 00

Request for Review Rights

Request for review of ARD’s denial of motion to dismiss 

petition will not be considered by A/S since Regs, make no 

provision for such review. (R A/S No. 8)

10 40 00

Area Administrator’s Action

On 12-7-72, A/S announced a change in policy with respect to representation hearings, indicating those circumstances under which AA’s and ARD’s properly may accept 

agreements of the parties on unit and eligibility issues, and/ 

or the circumstances under which hearings should be ordered. 

A/S stated, among other things: A hearing should be held 

when the AA or ARD determines that he has a significant 

question about the unit or employee eligibility that the agreement of the parties may be violative of the Order or A/S 

policies, or that the parties’ agreement raises questions of 

policy which A/S has not considered. Pursuant to new policy, A/S remanded case to ARD for purpose of either: (1) 

reopening hearing to secure additional evidence, or (2) on 

presentation of supporting evidence for parties’ agreement 

on claimed unit, having AA approve consent agreement. 

(FAA, Airway Facilities Sector, Ft. Worth, Texas, A/SLMR 

No. 230)

Where the parties agreed as to the scope of the unit sought 

and the AA approved, the hearing was limited to the specific 

issue which caused AA to direct hearing. (Nat’l. Science 

Foundation, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 316)

AA has discretionary authority to withdraw his approval 

of consent election agreement where subsequent to approval 

and prior to election, significant dispute exists as to eligibility 

or unit problems. (R A/S No. 42)

10 44 00

Defunctness

(See also: 10 24 12, ‘Agreement Bar”)

Exclusive representative not defunct where, after local 

union at facility was disbanded, its national union took affirmative action to administer the local’s agreement and to 

provide representation for the unit employees prior to petition by rival organization. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 173)

11
15 12 00

Exclusive representative is “defunct” when it is unwilling 

or unable to represent employees in its exclusively recognized 

or certified unit. However, mere temporary inability to function does not constitute defunctness. Evidence to be considered in determining whether exclusive representative is “defunct” is limited to those facts that predate filing of petition, 

and those facts that, although occurring after filing, constitute integral part of events which predate petition. (FAA, 

A/SLMR No. 173)

Negotiated agreement covering certain employees in 

claimed unit does not constitute a bar to the inclusion of 

these employees in unit sought as their exclusive representative was “defunct” at the time the subject petition was filed. 

(GSA, Region 2, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

15 00 00

REPRESENTATION HEARING

PROCEDURE

15 04 00

Role of Hearing Officer

HO has authority to continue hearing, pursuant to Sec. 

202.12(k) of Regs. (Army, Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., A/SLMR No. 77)

15 08 00

Motions

15 08 04 

General

Petitioner’s motion at hearing to bar Activity from objecting to petitioned for units because Activity failed to comply with requirements of Sec. 202.4(g) of Regs, to furnish 

parties with copies of its responses to respective petitions, 

which it had submitted to A A, denied by A/S inasmuch as 

petitioner: (1) had been apprised of Activity’s unit objections 

prior to hearing; (2) participated in hearing without request 

for additional time to cope with Activity’s unit objections; 

and, (3) did not suffer any material prejudice as result of 

Activity’s dereliction, which Activity is expected to avoid 

in future. (DSA, DCASR, San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 112)

ARD and HO denial of motion by all parties to delay 

opening of hearing not prejudicial to rights of any party 

where evidence insufficient to establish that ARD or HO 

were arbitrary or capricious or abused discretion. (Customs 

Bureau, Region IV, A/SLMR No. 152)

Denial by HO of Intervenor’s motion to hold at least one 

session of hearing in Puerto Rico for convenience of its 

witnesses held proper, despite Intervenor’s contention that 

such denial handicapped its presentation. (Customs Bureau, 

Region IV, A/SLMR No. 152)

Intervenor’s motion to dismiss petition on grounds that 

prior consolidated hearing for four separate units at Activity 

constituted hearing bar denied by A/S, who noted none of 

four petitions involved in prior proceeding encompassed employees covered by petition in question. (Army, ECOM, Ft. 

Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 258)

Motion to dismiss filed by Intervenor was denied by A/S, 

where the new petition filed was found to have been clearly

intended to amend an inadvertent error on the first, noting 

that there was no evidence that any party was prejudiced by 

the subsequent amendment. (Hq., Army Training Cntr., and 

Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., A/SLMR No. 328)

15 08 08

Amendment of Petition

Generally, statement of alternative positions regarding description of petitioned for unit should not be in form of 

amendments to petitions. (NASA, A/SLMR No. 46)

Absent prejudice to other parties, HO should have allowed 

motion to amend petition at hearing, without regard to opposition by other parties. (Army, Military Ocean Terminal, 

Bayonne, N.J., A/SLMR No. 77)

Crdss-petition, which was amended at hearing to include 

broader unit, was found untimely and dismissed because 

amendment occurred after prescribed ten-day posting period 

for original petition by another petitioner. (BIA, Bethel, 

Alaska, A/SLMR No. 200)

Stipulation by parties during course of hearing as to supervisory status of disputed classification treated by A/S as a 

request to withdraw clarification of unit petition inasfar as 

it applies to stipulated employee classification. (Pa. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

15 12 00

Evidence and Burden of Proof

Motion to dismiss petition based on labor organization’s 

failure to present any evidence at hearing denied because 

parties are not required to meet burden of proof in representation proceeding involving unit determination question. 

(Black Hills Nat’l. Forest and Box Elder Civilian Conservation Cntr., A/SLMR No. 58)

Evidence showing composition of units at similar activities 

was relevant, but rejection of evidence by HO not prejudicial. 

(Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Introduction into evidence of written opening statement 

by representative of Activities containing certain matters of 

fact, without being subject to cross-examination, permitted 

by HO, was erroneous. Ih consequence, A/S considered such 

facts to have no probative value, did not rely upon them and 

accordingly, held none of the parties was prejudiced. (Agriculture, Schenck Civilian Conservation Cntr., N.C., A / 

SLMR No. 116)

Letter, attached to exceptions to ALJ’s Report and Recommendations filed by Respondent and not presented as evidence during hearing, was not considered by A/S, inasmuch 

as it is dated more than year prior to hearing and there is 

no contention it is either newly discovered evidence or was 

previously unavailable to Respondent. (FAA Aeronautical 

Cntr., Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 117)

Labor organization failed to sustain burden of proof to 

establish that Agency head was arbitrary or capricious in determination excluding Audit Division employees from coverage of EO pursuant to Sec. 3(b)(4). (NASA, Mgt Audit 

Office, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 125)

Admission of evidence relating to number of incumbent 

labor organization’s dues-paying members at Activity was in 

error but was not prejudicial and does not warrant disqualification of HO. (Military Academy, West Point N Y 

A/SLMR No. 133) ’

12
15 20 00

Copy of CSC’s Position—Classification Standards, concerning classification of disputed category, accepted as relevant and received into record by A/S for limited purpose 

for which it was tendered, reversing HO’s rejection. (Army, 

Hq., Army Training Cntr. Engineer, Ft. Leonard Wood, 

Mo., A/SLMRNo.^183)

HO improperly denied intervenor right of full crossexamination of witnesses presented by petitioner, and evidence is insufficient for determination of agreement bar issue. (Savanna Army Depot, and AMC Ammunition Cntr., 

Savanna, 111., A/SLMR No. 228)

HO's denial of intervenor’s request for appearance of witnesses and/or production of documents because intervenor 

did not make “personal request” upon requested witnesses 

held to be in error because Regs, do not require any such 

“personal request.” (Savanna Army Depot, and AMC Ammunition Cntr., Savanna, 111., A/SLMR No. 228)

Evidence as to whether requested unit “will promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations” is within special knowledge of, and must be submitted by, Agency 

involved. (Navy, Military Sealift Command, A/SLMR No. 

245)

A/S is not bound to accept either AA’s certification of a 

unit elsewhere which excluded project directors and “management officials” or Agency directives or policies defining 

a “management official” as determinative. (Defense Mapping 

Agency, Topographic Cntr., West Warwick, R.I., A/SLMR 

No. 310)

I

Insufficient evidence to establish that satellite units of Exchange service would not promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of agency operations. (Army and AF Exchange 

Service, NW Area Exchange, Fort Lewis, Wash., A/SLMR 

No. 338)

Documents signed by Support Facility Commander which 

are alleged to be “certifications” of supervisory duties of 

certain employees, are of limited probative value when in 

conflict with testimony of those having actual knowledge 

of work performed by incumbent or with an official job 

description. (Pa. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

Allegations that Activity improperly withdrew offer of 

promotion dismissed where ALJ found that even if Activity 

had offered and then withheld promotion, evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of the Order. (National 

Park Service, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 402)

15 16 00

Unfair Labor Practice Allegations

Motion made at representation hearing to have Activity 

found in default because of its alleged refusal to meet with 

petitioner and respond to its petition, as prescribed by Secs. 

202.4(f) and (g) of Regs., denied since matters which may be 

subject to unfair labor practices complaint may not be raised 

in representation proceedings. (Naval Air Rework Facility, 

Alameda, Cal., A/SLMR No. 61)

Question whether Activity was dilatory in its bargaining 

conduct, and therefore prevented consummation of agreement cannot be resolved in context of representation proceeding. Relief may be sought at appropriate time by filing 

unfair labor practice complaint. (Army Corps of Engrs., 

Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 80)

15 20 00

Obligation of Parties

Petition dismissed where Petitioner refused HO’s request 

to permit its president, present at hearing, to testify because, 

lacking subpoena power under EO, A/S needs cooperation 

of parties, particularly Petitioner. (VA Hospital, Brockton, 

Mass., A/SLMR No. 21; DSA, DCAS, Boston, Mass., 

A/SLMR No. 391)

In view of dismissal of petition on other grounds, A /S 

found it unnecessary to rule on motions to dismiss petition 

where petitioner failed to appear and participate at hearing. 

(Aberdeen-Edgewood Exchange, A/SLMR No. 43)

When Agency has been given notice regarding employee 

witnesses requested to participate in formal unit determination proceedings, including reasons for their participation, 

where Agency deems such request unreasonable in that it 

exceeds what is “necessary” to proceeding, it should give 

requesting party written notification of decision rejecting request and reasons therefor. Such denial may be appealed to 

appropriate ARD prior to hearing, or to HO after opening 

of hearing, who may deem that disputed witnesses are necessary to proceeding and issue Request for Appearance of 

Witnesses. Agency’s refusal to make such necessary witnesses 

available on official time at formal unit determination hearings, including payment of necessary transportation and per 

diem expenses, may be deemed violative of Sec. 19(a). 

(Navy Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., 

A/SLMR No. 139)

Agency’s refusal to grant official time to necessary employee union witnesses at formal unit determination hearing 

inherently interfered with, restrained or coerced employees 

in exercise of rights assured by Sec. 1(a), in violation of Sec. 

19(a)(1), without requiring proof of anti-union motivation. 

(Navy Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., 

A/SLMR No. 139)

Agency not obligated to make available on official time 

employees who appear solely as union representatives but 

not as witnesses at formal unit determination hearing. (Navy 

Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR 

No. 139)

A/S found that, while evidence in instant case was sufficient to reach decision, parties improperly refused to cooperate with HO in his efforts to perform his function of 

developing full and complete record on which A/S could 

render decision. A/S found refusal of Activity to supply job 

descriptions was indefensible and stated that in future conduct of type demonstrated by parties may require that case 

be remanded or dismissed. (Customs, Region IX, Chicago,

111., A/SLMR No. 210)

If Union desires that employee witness at unit determination hearing be on official time status at hearing, this desire 

should be communicated clearly to Agency or Activity involved prior to hearing. After employee witness has testified. 

Agency or Activity may request that such witness return to 

work. (Reserve Command Hq., Camp McCoy, Sparta, Wis., 

102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 

256)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 73A-18, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A/SLM R No. 139 and concluded that Agency 

refusal to grant official time to union witnesses for participation at formal unit determination hearing was not violative 

of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO. (Reserve Command Hq., Camp Mc13
20 04 04

Coy, Sparta, Wis., 102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, Mo., 

A/SLMR No. 306)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 72A-20, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A/SLM R No. 139 and concluded that Agency 

refusal to grant official time to union witnesses for participation at formal unit determination hearing was not violative 

of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO. (Navy Dept, and Naval Weapons 

Sta., Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No. 307)

A/S noted that the Federal Labor Relations Council 

(Council) in the Decision on Appeal in Department of the

Navy and the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia, A/SLMR No. 139, FLRC No. 72A-20, found that the 

EO does not require agencies to grant official time to union 

witnesses at formal unit determination hearings. Pursuant to 

the Council’s Decision, the A/S indicated that based on his 

experience and because there was an established need, he 

intended to promulgate a regulation granting official time 

status to necessary witnesses at all types of formal hearings 

held under Sec. 6(a)(1), (2),. (3), (4) and (5) of the Order. 

Moreover, the A/S indicated that the regulation he will promulgate will include a provision for official time for authorized representation election observers, inasmuch as employees acting as official observers facilitate his responsibilities 

under the EO to supervise elections and to assure that elections are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. (IRS, 

Fresno, Cal., A/SLMR No. 309)

15 24 00

Post-Hearing Submissions

Motion by Activity to reopen record for limited purpose 

of receiving newly published document, submitted with certificate of service on Petitioner, granted because of: (1) Petitioner’s non-opposition; (2) peculiar nature of document; 

and (3) document’s relevance and materiality. As document 

was clear on its face and absent opposition by petitioner, no 

time was allowed for filing supplemental briefs. (AAFES, 

MacDill AFB Consolidated Exchange, Fla., A/SLMR No 

29),

Post-hearing stipulation by parties, setting forth additional 

facts pertinent to appropriateness of unit sought, accepted 

by A/S. (Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, Cal., A / 

SLMR No. 61)

Petitioner’s motion to remand case “to clear up - the 

clouded portions” of record and secure additional evidence 

denied on basis of affirmative evidence contained in record 

and in absence of specific exceptions having been filed to 

HO’s proposed corrections of record, which corrected record 

A/S relied on in reaching decision. (Military Academy, West 

Point, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 133)

Joint stipulation of parties to correct official transcript rejected by HO as untimely, subsequently accepted by A/S as 

corrections in no way change content or meaning of record, 

and in interest of establishing complete factual record. (St. 

Louis Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

15 28 00

Remand

Cases remanded for further hearing where record failed 

to provide adequate basis on which to determine appropriateness of unit sought. (A/SLMR Nos. 20, 34, 76, 86, 101, 108, 

111, 116, 118, 147, 163, 172, 174, 228 and 387)

Case remanded for further hearing where record fails to 

provide adequate basis upon which to determine professional 

status of certain job classifications. (Bureau of Land Mgt., 

District Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

Motion for remand for further proceedings granted 

where HO erred in denying Intervener’s request for appearance of witnesses and production of documents (Savanna 

Army Depot, and AMC Ammunition Cntr., Savanna, 111., 

A/SLMR No. 228)

Pursuant to A /S’s new policy, announced December 7,

1972, in which he indicated circumstances whereby AAs and 

ARDs may properly accept parties’ agreements on unit and 

eligibility issues and/or the circumstances under which 

hearings should be ordered, A/S remanded case to ARD for 

purpose of either: (1) reopening hearing to secure additional 

evidence; or (2) on presentation of supporting evidence for 

parties’ agreement on claimed unit, having AA approve 

consent agreement. (FAA, Airway Facilities Sector, Ft. 

Worth, Texas, A/SLMR No. 230)

20 00 00

REPRESENTATION UNIT

DETERMINATIONS

20 04 00

Criteria

20 04 04

Community of Interest

Claimed unit is appropriate where, among other factors, 

included employees share a clear and identifiable community 

of interest which is separate and distinct from excluded employees. (See A/SLMR Nos. 2, 11, 22, 45, 58, 116, 122, 131, 

145, 236, 249, 254, 260, 262, 265, 267, 270, 351, 354, 356, 

358 and 392)

Test of whether alleged “professional” and “nonprofessional” employees may be joined in same unit is whether such 

employees share common conditions of employment, such 

as common supervision, leave, and benefits, and have clear 

and identifiable community of interest with each other, despite differences in special educational qualifications, job 

functions, lack of interchange and different career opportunities. (Bureau of Land Mgt., District Office, Lakeview. 

Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where included employees 

do not share a clear and identifiable community of interest 

which IS separate and distinct from excluded emolovees rSee 

A/SLMR Nos. 4, 8, 19, 23, 36, 40, 44 46 49 59 60 61 

64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 73, 75, 79, 82, 109, 114 115 119 123 

140, 141, 156, 158, 166, 189, 237, 258, 259 274 309 375 

378, 382, 389, 398 and 399)

Five claimed units, all primarily restricted to directoratewide basis, of activity which has 17 offices and directorates 

held not appropriate. (Army, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover N J 

A/SLMR No. 41)

Unit which excludes Fabrication Branch employees (shoo 

personnel) from broad unit of professional and nonprofes 

sional employees employed in Research and Develonment 

Technical Support Activity (TSA) found to be inapproori 

ate. (Army Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth M t ' 

A/SLMR No. 83) ’

14
20 04 12

Proposed unit is inappropriate because it consists of only 

some segments of the Activity, which lack a controlling 

community of interest, and is based solely on extent of 

organization. (2nd Coast Guard District, St. Louis, A/SLMR 

No. 93)

Three proposed units, each composed of geographic parts 

of the Activity’s structure, held inappropriate where, among 

other factors, there is no evidence that the employees in the 

proposed units share an interest distinct from the other 

employees of Activity—other than working in different geographic locations. (DSA, DCASR, San Francisco, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 112)

Where Petitioner sought an Activity-wide unit, A/S 

excluded employees in Audit Division as the Activity did 

not exercise any direction or control over such employees 

and they had historically been represented on a separate 

basis. (HUD, Region II, A/SLMR No. 270)

Claimed unit of employees found not appropriate where 

it included employees who work in three program services 

in a geographic area within the same region but who do not 

share a clear and identifiable community of interest because 

employees have little or no commonality other than they 

work in the same geographic area. (GSA, Fresno, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 293)

20 04 08

Effective Dealings .

(See 20 04 12, “Efficiency of Operations”)

Insufficient evidence was offered to establish that unit of 

plumbers, pipefitters and related classifications of the 

Activity’s Maintenance Division would not promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of operations within the meaning of 

Sec. 10(b) of EO. (Naval Air Station, Alameda, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 6)

Unit of all WB and GS employees deemed appropriate, 

where same unit has existed since 1968 and there is no 

evidence that it hindered agency operations or effective 

dealings. (Public Health Service Hospital, HEW, San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 82)

Proposed unit held appropriate under all circumstances, 

including clear and identifiable community of interest 

among employees sought, particularly in view of past history 

of exclusive recognition covering same units without impairment of effective dealings or agency operations. (DSA, 

Boston-Quality Assurance, A/SLMR No. 97)

Activity contention that claimed unit of motor pool employees would fragment established area-wide employee 

representation and would not promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of operations is not supported by evidence, 

which is within special knowledge of, and must be submitted by, Activity. (GSA, Region 10, Interagency Motor 

Pool No. 2, Portland, Oreg., A/SLMR No. 146)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where, among other 

factors, it would result in fragmented units which could 

not reasonably be expected to promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of operations. (See A/SLMR Nos. 23, 40, 41, 46, 

59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 71, 79, 82, 112, 114, 115, 124, 151, 

156, 158, 166, 398 and 399)

Proposed unit is inappropriate because broader unit has 

been basis of established, effective and fair collective bargaining relationship. (GSA, Raritan Depot, Edison, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 66)

Unit limited to licensed vocational nurses held inappropriate where evidence does not show ineffective or unfair 

representation in larger unit in which they have been 

represented exclusively. (Public Health Service Hospital, 

HEW, San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 82)

Unit limited to one WB job series appropriate but single 

unit of three WB job series not appropriate where, among 

other factors, there is past history of successful, separate 

representation for each of the three job series and such 

history indicates there have been effective dealings on that 

basis. (Material Command, Red River Army Depot, 

A/SLMR No. 131)

Unit limited to WB and GS employees in two field locations of Activity having numerous such locations held inappropriate because establishment of unit which includes 

some, but not all, employees who share community of 

interest would not promote effective dealings and efficiency 

of operations. (GSA, Region 7, Tex., A/SLMR No. 176)

Unit of WB employees not appropriate where, among 

other factors, it would be so fragmented that it could not 

reasonably be expected to promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of operations. (Richard B. Russell Research Cntr., 

Ga., A/SLMR No. 189)

Despite long-standing Activity collective bargaining history 

of many representation units—some as limited as requested 

unit of Housing Division WB employees, with Division’s 

GS employees excluded—claimed unit held not appropriate 

where established units, with one exception, were recognized 

under EO 10988, and evidence demonstrates that further 

representational fragmentation would not promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of operations. (Housing Division, 

HQ, 9th Infantry Division and Ft. Lewis, Washington, 

A/SLMR No. 209)

20 04 12

Efficiency of Operations

(See also 20 04 08, “Effective Dealings”)

Unit limited to all nonsupervisory WB employees of one 

Section of Activity’s Division is appropriate rather than a 

Division-wide or Branch-wide unit, including GS as well as 

WB employees, based on a number of factors, including position of Activity that neither of the two proposed units would 

impair efficiency of operations. (FAA, NAFEC, Atlantic 

City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 15)

Activity’s position that narrower of two claimed units 

would not adversely affect efficiency of operations is noted 

and self-determination election directed. (HEW, Cntr. for 

Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 132)

Activity contention that claimed unit of motor pool employees would fragment established Area-wide employee 

representation and would not promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of operations is within special knowledge of, 

and must be submitted by. Activity. (GSA, Region 10, 

Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR 

No. 146)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where, among other 

factors, it would result in fragmented units which could not 

reasonably be expected to promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of operations. (See A/SLMR Nos. 23, 40, 41, 46, 

59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 71, 75, 79, 82, 112, 114, 115, 124, 

151, 156, 158, 166, 398 and 399)

15
20 08 08

Activity’s position that area-wide unit and not residual 

unit sought was appropriate in order to promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations is not supported 

by evidence, which is within special knowledge of, and must 

be submitted by. Agency involved. (Army, U.S. Dependents’ 

Schools, European Area, A/SLMR No. 260)

20 04 16

Agency Regulations and Parties’ Stipulations Not Binding on 

Assistant Secretary

(See also: 25 12 04, “Challenges, Eligibility of Employees”, 

for stipulations of parties related to challenges.)

Agency regulations prohibiting inclusion of off-duty military personnel in employee bargaining units are not binding 

on A/S if they contravene purposes of EO. (AAFES, White 

Sands, N.M., Missile Range, A/SLMR No. 25)

No determination made on parties’ agreement to exclude 

military personnel where record fails to disclose whether 

these employees come within category of off-duty military 

employees, whose exclusion is unwarranted if based solely 

on military status. (AAFES, MacDill APB Consolidated 

Exchange, Fla., A/SLMR No. 29)

ARD not bound to accept agreement of parties as to unit 

exclusions or inclusions nor precluded from issuing Notice 

of Hearing. (Alaskan Exchange System, Southern District 

and HQ., A/SLMR No. 32)

Employees who, regardless of classification, perform 

regular, recurring guard duty for substantial periods of time, 

are guards under Sec. 2(d) of EO and excluded from unit 

pursuant to Sec. 10(b)(3) of EO, notwithstanding parties’ 

agreement to include them in unit. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 69)

A/S made no finding with respect to temporary employees, notwithstanding parties’ stipulation at hearing that 

such employees be excluded from unit, because the record 

did not set forth any facts as to how parties define “temporary employees.” (Army Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 83)

Stipulation of parties to exclude Crew Chiefs (Lieutenants), 

Training Officers, and Fire Inspectors from unit of Firefighters rejected, where evidence fails to establish that employees in these categories have supervisory authority. 

(FAA, Nat’l. Capital Airports, A/SLMR No. 91)

Stipulations by parties resolving certain determinative 

challenges based on supervisory status, which were relied 

upon in issuing certification of representative, were revealed 

to be sham stipulations when certified representative subsequently filed petition for clarification of unit, seeking to 

include in unit, among others, the employees previously 

excluded by stipulation. A/S ordered the prior certification 

revoked because of substantial doubt as to its validity. (111. 

Air Nat’l. Guard, 182nd., A/SLMR No. 105, reversed in 

part, FLRC No. 71A-59)

Agreement of parties that petitioned unit is appropriate, 

without supporting evidence, insufficient basis for A/S to 

determine appropriateness. (Pordand, Ore. Area Office, 

HUD, A/SLMR No. I ll)

Parties’ agreement on unit appropriateness does not entitle 

parties to automatic election, nor does it preclude A/S from 

considering appropriateness of such unit through hearing

on issues involved. (See A/SLMR Nos. 25, 26, 28, 33, 86 

and 151)

Off-duty military employees whg work sufficient number 

of hours to be classified as either regular full-time or regular 

part-time may not be excluded from unit despite Agency 

regulations which automatically categorize off-duty military 

personnel as “temporary part-time” employees regardless of 

time they work or otherwise automatically exclude them 

from units. (AAFES, Fort Huachuca, Ariz., A/SLMR 

No. 167)

Although parties may have been misled with respect to 

scope of hearing, there is no indication that either party 

was prejudiced by being required to produce evidence as 

to scope of unit and employee eligibility, despite their agreement on such issues, in order that A/S properly could carry 

out his responsibility under EO. (Treasury, U.S. Savings 

Bonds Div., Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

A/S is not required to accept agreement of parties as to 

appropriateness of unit or to otherwise limit scope of hearing based on such agreement. (Nat’l. Hwy. Traffic Safety 

Adm., Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 193; Army Safeguard 

Logistics Command, and Army Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

20 04 20

Previous Certification

Election directed in unit previously certified under EO 

11491 and where there is lack of any disagreement between 

the parties to the scope of the unit. (FAA, ARTCC, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 277)

20 08 00

Geographic Scope

20 08 04 

World-wide

No entries.

20 08 08 

Nation-wide

Unit of all GS professional and nonprofessional employees, including all Bureau of Motor Car Safety (BMCS) 

employees, limited to Regional Office, held appropriate and 

unit of all BMCS employees on Nation-wide basis, inappropriate. (DOT, Fed. Highway Adm., Bureau of Motor 

Car Safety, A/SLMR No. 98)

Three claimed units, each composed of geographic parts 

of Activity’s operations, held inappropriate. (DSA, DCASR, 

San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 112)

Nation-wide unit of all flight service specialists (FSS) 

employed at flight service stations of Activity, except those 

at which the petition is barred because of existing agreements or certifications of representation issued within the 

period of 12 months immediately preceding the filing of the 

petition, is appropriate, and narrow unit of FSS at a sinele 

station held inappropriate. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 122)

Region-wide unit of all unrepresented employees held 

appropriate and claims of second Petitioner for either Nation 

wide field unit excluding all Regional headquarters em 

ployees or Region-wide unit in Region excluding Regional 

Headquarters employees are held not appropriate, ^ a f l 

Weather Service, Central Region, A/SLMR No. 151)

16
20 12 08

20 08 12

State-wide

Of two proposed units, State-wide unit of all WB and 

GS Army National Guard technicians held appropriate, 

and single-installation unit of such technicians held inappropriate. (Pa. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 9)

Comprehensive unit of all WB and GS technicians in 

Minnesota Army National Guard appropriate, and narrower 

unit of all WB technicians on State-wide basis including 

certain GS technicians at 66 installations in State not 

appropriate. (Minn. Army Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 14)

Two separate State-wide units of all WB and GS employees of (1) Air and (2) Army National Guard Technicians, as sought, excluding separately represented Army 

Aviation facility employees, held appropriate. (Fla. Army 

Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 37)

Of two proposed units. State-wide unit of all nonsupervisory GS and WB technicians in Air National Guard found 

appropriate, and single-installation unit of such technicians 

held inappropriate. (Ohio Nat’l: Guard, A/SLMR No. 44)

A/S found two separate State-wide units of Army and of 

Air National Guard technicians appropriate, where Petitioners had sought: (1) State-wide unit of all Army National 

Guard technicians; and, (2) State-wide unit of all Army and 

Air National Guard technicians. (Nat’l. Guard Bureau, Adj. 

Gen., Ga., A/SLMR No. 74)

Three claimed units, each composed of geographic parts 

of Activity’s operations, held inappropriate. (DSA, DCASR, 

San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 112)

20 08 16

City-wide

Unit of all employees of the Bureau of Mines of the 

Department of Interior located in the Denver Metropolitan 

area, serviced by the Bureau’s Western Administrative 

Office Branch of Personnel and of all employees in Denver 

of the Health and Safety Analysis Center of the Mine 

Enforcement and Safety Administration of the DOT, also 

serviced by the Bureau of Mines’ Western Administrative 

Office Branch of Personnel found appropriate. (Bureau of 

Mines, Denver, Colo., A/SLMR No. 312)

20 12 00

Organizational Scope

20 12 04

Agency-wide

No entries

20 12 08

Activity-wide

Broad unit of both Headquarters and field employees 

held appropriate and narrow unit limited to employees 

“stationed” at Activity’s Headquarters found inappropriate 

based on: (1) narrow unit’s inclusion of some Headquarters 

employees who spend substantial portion of time in field, 

while excluding other field personnel; (2) centralized supervisory and administrative structure, with handling of all 

personnel matters, including grievances, at Headquarters;

(3) integrated work processes and similarity of job classifications in field and Headquarters, and transfers between the

two; (4) Division-wide “bumping rights”; and (5) clear and 

identifiable community of interest among employees in comprehensive unit, which unit will promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of agency operations. (Army Engnr. Dvsn., 

New England, A/SLMR No. 5)

Activity-wide unit of professional and non-professional 

employees at Veterans Administration Hospital is appropriate, with self-determination election for professionals directed. (VA Hospital, Lexington, Ky., A/SLMR No. 22)

Activity-wide unit is appropriate and narrower units 

proposed by three other petitioners are not appropriate. 

(Army Support Facility, Ft.. Hayes, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 35)

Activity-wide unit composed of employees from Box 

Elder Civilian Conservation Center and seven subdivisions 

of Forest Service’s Black Hills National Forest found inappropriate, but two separate units of nonsupervisory employees 

of: (1) the Center; and (2) the seven subdivisions of Black 

Hills National Forest, held appropriate. (Black Hills Nat’l. 

Forest and Box Elder Civilian Conservation Cntr., A/SLMR 

No. 58)

Overall unit of professional and nonprofessional employees 

in all four divisions of Activity held appropriate, if professionals select such inclusion, and narrow unit of nonsupervisory GS employees in' one of four divisions held 

inappropriate. (HEW, Data Mgt. Cntr., A/SLMR No. 72)

Activity-wide WB and GS unit held appropriate, and unit 

limited to WB inappropriate. (Army, Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., A/SLMR No. 77)

Broad unit of all nonsupervisory employees of Activity 

found appropriate. (Santa Fe Nat’l. Forest, N.M., A/SLMR 

No. 88)

Multi-school, Activity-wide unit of teachers, education 

specialists and guidance counselors held appropriate. (BIA, 

Navajo Area, N.M., A/SLMR No. 99)

Activity-wide unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees of the Forest Supervisor’s Office and the 10 

Ranger Districts in the National Forests of North Carolina 

may, if the professionals so vote, constitute an appropriate 

unit, and broader unit, including such employees and professional and nonprofessional employees of one of two 

Civilian Conservation Centers (CCC) located in the National 

Forests of North Carolina held inappropriate. (Agriculture, Schenck Civilian Conservation Cntr., N.C.., A/SLMR 

No. 116)

Activity-wide unit of employees of Exchange Service held 

appropriate. (Army and AF Exchange, Fort Huachuca, 

Ariz., A/SLMR No. 167)

Activity-wide unit of GS and WB employees held appropriate. (Interior, Bureau of Land Mgt., Riverside District 

and Land Office, Calif., A/SLMR No. 170)

Activity-wide unit of all nonsupervisory and nonprofessional employees appropriate, and narrower unit limited to 

Quality Inspection Specialists not appropriate. (Lone Star 

Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex., A/SLMR No. 

187)

Unit of all WB employees of Activity found appropriate, 

where no labor organization has petitioned for more comprehensive unit and Activity has no objection to petitioned 

for unit. (Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR 

No. 181)

17
20 12 24

Activity-wide unit of licensed marine engineers is appropriate. (Navy, Military Sealift Command, A/SLMR No. 245)

Activity-wide unit of all employees found appropriate. 

(Bureau of Land Mgt., District Office, Lakeview, Ore., 

A/SLMR No. 212)

Unit limited to all employees of Tactical Airlift Group 

found appropriate. (926th Tactical Airlift Gp., Naval Air 

Sta., Belle Chasse, La., A/SLMR No. 221)

Activity-wide unit appropriate despite contention by 

.Activity and Intervenor that Activity-wide unit was inappropriate and that each field office and Activity’s headquarters 

constituted separate appropriate units. (HUD, Region II, 

A/SLMR No. 270)

Overall unit combining Activity’s GS and WG employees 

duty stationed at two work locations found appropriate. 

(VA Hospital, East Orange, N.J., A/SLMR No. 311)

Unit of Activity’s regular full-time, regular part-time, 

temporary part-time, intermittent and off-duty military employees held appropriate. (Air Force, Fort Snelling Officers 

Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR No. 327)

Activity-wide unit of all professionals and nonprofessionals at Veterans Administration Hospital found appropriate pending self-determination election of professionals 

pursuant to Sec. 10(b)(4) of EO. (VA Hospital, Tampa, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 330)

Unit composed of GS employees, but excluding Foreign 

Service employees, inappropriate despite differences between 

the two groups in personnel systems, benefits, rights, pay 

scales, and certain conditions of employment, where these 

factors were offset by close working relationship in that 

some Foreign Service employees of Activity work alongside, 

perform same job functions, and have essentially same job 

classifications and supervision as the GS employees. (ACTION, A/SLMR No. 207)

Activity-wide unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees, which otherwise would be appropriate, found 

not appropriate where, after pending consolidation of 

Activity with another, a unit restricted to that petitioned for 

would exclude other employees who share a clear and 

identifiable community of interest with employees in the 

unit sought within the consolidated Activity and would result 

in such fragmentation as to preclude effective dealings and 

efficiency of agency operations. (Mark Twain National 

Forest, Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR No. 303)

Unit limited to regular full-time and regular part-time 

employees held not appropriate. (Air Force, Fort Snelling 

Officers Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR No. 327)

20 12 12

Directorate-wide

Five claimed units, all primarily restricted to directoratewide basis, of Activity which has 17 offices and directorates 

held not appropriate. (Army, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 41)

Unit of nonprofessional administrative, clerical and technical personnel limited to one of Activity’s Directorates 

found inappropriate. (DSA, DESC, Dayton, Ohio, A/SLMR 

No. 64)

Unit limited to nonprofessional GS employees at one 

office of Activity’s several offices and Directorates not appropriate. (Naval Training Device Center, Orlando, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 140)

Four separate units, each limited to a Directorate level 

or less, not appropriate. (Army Electronics Command, Fort 

Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 216)

20 12 16

Command-wide

Unit of all U.S. citizen employees of Army Base Command 

located on foreign soil (including off-island employees) 

found appropriate. (Army Base Command, Okinawa, 

A/SLMR No. 243)

Unit of three U.S. Army Communications Command 

Agency (USACC)' Directorates formed as a result of a 

reorganization which placed' all communication related 

activities.1 under same major command found not appropriate. (Army Communications Com., Ft. Sam Houston, 

Texas, A/SLMR No. 398)

20 12 20

Headquarters-wide

Unit of all GS and WB employees limited to Headquarters 

Office but excluding field employees is appropriate. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 185)

Unit of professional and nonprofessional employees at 

headquarters of Region is appropriate. (HEW, Regional 

Office VI, Dallas, Texas, A/SLMR No. 266)

Existing unit of all GS and WB employees of Activity 

with duty station at its headquarters found appropriate. A/S 

rejected Activity contention that only Region-wide unit was 

appropriate. A/S also rejected intervenor’s contention that 

petitioned for unit and another unit of the Activity, both 

represented exclusively by Intervenor, had merged into single 

unit. (DSA, DCASR, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 271)

Broad unit of both Headquarters and field employees held 

appropriate and narrow unit limited to employees “stationed” 

at Activity’s Headquarters found inappropriate based on: 

(1) narrow unit’s inclusion of some Headquarters employees 

who spend substantial portion of time in field, while excluding other field personnel; (2) centralized supervisory and administrative structure, with handling of all personnel matters, 

mcludmg grievances, at Headquarters; (3) integrated work 

^ocesses and similarity of job classifications in field and 

Headquarters, and transfers between the two; (4) Divisionwide “bumping rights;” and, (5) clear and identifiable commumty of interest among employees in comprehensive unit, 

which unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency of

A%"l MR No 5 T '‘ '

T un't held appropriate and unit limited to

I^n ernal Revenue agents at Activity’s headquarters office 

held inappropriate. (IRS, New Orleans, La., A/SLMR No 

16)

Unit limited to Regional headquarters but excluding field 

employees not appropriate. (Econ. Development Adm S F 

Regional Office, Ga., A/SLMR No. 229) ’

20 12 24 

Field-wide

No entries.

18
20 12 40

20 12 28

Region-wide

Overall unit of all professional and nonprofessional employees located throughout Western Region of Activity held 

appropriate. (IRS, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 57)

Region-wide unit held appropriate. (St. Louis Region, 

CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Unit of all GS professional and nonprofessional employees, including all Bureau Motor Car Safety (BMCS) employees, limited to Regional Office, held appropriate and 

unit of all BMCS employees on Nation-wide basis, inappropriate. (DOT, Fed. Highway Adm., and Bureau of Motor 

Car Safety, A/SLMR No. 98)

Region-wide unit of all unrepresented employees held appropriate and claims of second petitioner for either Nationwide field unit excluding all Regional headquarters employees or Region-wide unit in one Region excluding Regional 

headquarters employees are held not appropriate. (Nat’l. 

Weather Service, Central Region, A/SLMR No. 151)

Region-wide unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees of Office of Regional Counsel, Western Region, 

held to be appropriate. (Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 161)

Region-wide unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees found appropriate. (Customs, Region IX, Chicago,

111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Region-wide unit of all nonsupervisory professional and 

nonprofessional employees of the National Weather Service’s 

Central Region is appropriate. (Nat’l. Weather Service Central Region, A/SLMR No. 331)

Region-wide unit of professional and nonprofessional employees found appropriate pending outcome of self-determination election among professionals. (GSA, Region 2, New 

York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

Residual, region-wide unit of all unrepresented nonprofessional employees found appropriate. (DSA, DCAS, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 391)

Existing unit of all GS and WB employees of Activity with 

duty station at its headquarters found appropriate. A/S rejected Activity contention that only Region-wide unit was 

appropriate. A/S also rejected Intervenor’s contention that 

petitioned for unit and another unit of the Activity, both 

represented exclusively by Intervenor, had merged into single 

unit. (DSA, DCASR, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 271)

20 12 32

Division-wide

Unit of all professional employees in one of the administrative divisions of an Activity in Washington, D.C. found 

appropriate. (Customs Service, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

354)

Division-wide unit of WG employees in an existing recognized unit encompassed by appropriate regionwide petition 

granted a self-determination election. (GSA, Region 2, New 

York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

Unit limited to all nonsupervisory WB employees of one 

Section of Activity’s Division held appropriate rather than 

Division-wide or Branch-wide unit including GS as well as

WB employees. (FAA, NAFEC, Atlantic City, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 15)

Overall unit of professional and non-professional employees in all four divisions of Activity held appropriate, if professionals select such inclusion, and narrow unit of nonsupervisory GS employees in one of four divisions held inappropriate. (HEW, Data Mgt. Cntr., A/SLMR No. 72)

Overall unit of all GS and WB employees of Activity located in U.S. Custom House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

found appropriate and narrow unit of all nonsupervisory GS 

employees located in one division inappropriate. (Army Engr. 

Dstrct., Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 90)

Unit limited to one of 25 divisions of National Office of 

Activity not appropriate despite the fact that claimed unit 

performs both staff and operational functions in administering international aspects of Activity’s domestic program. 

(IRS, Office of Int’n’l Operations, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 141)

Unit limited to investigators and Investigative Aides in 

Activity’s Investigation Division held inappropriate. (CEC, 

San Francisco Region, A/SLMR No. 175)

Unit limited to Activity’s Housing Division WB employees, 

with GS excluded, is not appropriate. (Housing Division, HQ 

9th Infantry Division and Ft. Lewis, Washington, A/SLMR 

No. 209)

Unit of employees of one of seven divisions of Activity’s 

central Region, which division is composed of four separate 

branches which report independently to their respective 

branches at the National Office, found not appropriate. (Geological Survey, Central Region, Publications Div., Colo., 

A/SLMR No. 274)

Unit of all nonsupervisory, nonprofessional employees at 

one of five divisions of Activity found not appropriate. (Veterans Benefit Office, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 357)

20 12 36

Area-wide

Unit limited to Area Office of Activity held appropriate. 

(Portland, Ore., Area Office. HUD, A/SLMR No. 153)

Unit limited to employees of a single Area Office of one 

of five regional program services is appropriate where unit 

claimed includes all employees of the Area Office and where 

no labor organization was seeking to represent the claimed 

employees in a more comprehensive unit. (GSA, Region 5, 

Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 265)

Unit of all employees at one of Activity’s 11 area organizational maintenance shops is not appropriate. (Fifth U.S. 

Army, 86th ARCOM, Wise., A/SLMR No. 244)

Area-wide unit of Federal Protective Officers, except for 

those in recognized units where agreement bars exist, held 

appropriate. (GSA, Region 3, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

347)

20 12 40

District-wide

District-wide unit held appropriate and unit limited to 

Internal Revenue agents at Activity’s headquarters office 

held inappropriate. (IRS, New Orleans, La., A/SLMR No.

16)

19
20 12 56

Of two proposed units, District-wide unit of all nonsupervisory professional and nonprofessional employees found appfopriate, and unit of all employees in three of District’s 

offices held inappropriate. (IRS, Indianapolis Dstrct., 

A/SLMR No. 52)

District-wide unit of all nonsupervisory professional and 

nonprofessional employees, excluding Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Division employees who had been excluded 

pursuant to Sec. 2(b)(3) of EO, found appropriate. (IRS, 

Birmingham Dstrct, Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Unit of Deputy United States Marshals and other employees, limited to one judicial District within State, is appropriate. (Marshal’s Office, Northern Dstrct of Ga., A/SLMR 

No. 198)

District-wide unit of all nonsupervisory nonprofessional 

employees found appropriate. (Army Enginer Dstrct., Mobile, Ala., A/SLMR No. 206)

Unit limited to employees of Activity’s Flight Inspection 

District Office, Battle Creek, Michigan, found appropriate 

even subsequent to reorganization. (FAA, Battle Creek 

Mich. A/SLMR No. 313)

Unit of professional and nonprofessional employees of 

Newark, New Jersey District, Food and Drug Administration, HEW found appropriate. (HEW, FDA, Newark, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 361)

Three claimed units, each composed of geographic parts 

of Activity’s operations, held inappropriate. (DSA, DCASR, 

San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 112)

20 12 44

Branch-wide

Individual bargaining units consisting of all employees in 

two separate Defense Contract Administration Service 

Offices located within a Defense Contract Administration 

Services Region found appropriate. (DSA, DCASR, Cleveland, Ohio; DCASO, Columbus, Ohio; DSA, DCASR, 

Akron, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 372)

Unit limited to all nonsupervisory WB employees of one 

Section of Activity’s Division held appropriate rather than 

Division-wide or Branch-wide unit including GS as well as 

WB employees. (FAA, NAFEC, Atlantic City, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 15)

Unit of all nonsupervisory professional and nonprofessional employees of Activity’s Los Angeles Region Appellate 

Branch Office excluding all other Western Region Appellate 

employees held inappropriate. (IRS, Western Region, 

A/SLMR No. 57)

Unit limited to one of five Branches of Activity Division 

which, in turn, is one of five Offices of Activity, is inappropriate where employees sought do not constitute grouping 

of craft employees. (Nat’l. Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Admin., Metropolitan Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 196)

20 12 48

Base-wide

Unit of employees of Army and Air Force Exchange 

Service at Fort Bliss Exchange and its satellite exchanges is 

appropriate. (AAFES, Fort Bliss Post Exchange, El Paso, 

Texas, A/SLMR No. 236)

20 12 52

Section-wide

Unit limited to all nonsupervisory WB employees of one 

Section of Activity’s Division held appropriate rather than 

Division-wide or Branch-wide unit including GS as well as 

WB employees. (FAA, NAFEC, Atlantic City, N.J., A / 

SLMR No. 15)

Employees at only one of the tvfo sections of the Activity 

petitioned for constitute appropriate unit because they are 

engaged in integrated operation, under common supervision 

and are generally at same location, with no interchange 

outside the section. Petitioned for unit, which included 

employees at two sections of Activity, held inappropriate. 

(Army, St. Louis Dstrct., Corps of Engnrs., A/SLMR No.

17)

20 12 56

Multi-Installation

Claimed unit covering Miami District Office and Tampa 

Post-of-Duty Station of Activity held appropriate where, 

among other things, a unit comprised of employees of the 

District Office and Post-of-Duty Station would be substantially consistent with the established bargaining history of the 

District Office. (Small Business Admin., Miami Dstrct 

Office, Fla., A/SLMR No. 314)

Unit of all employees of Exchange (AAFES) Service 

found appropriate despite substantial geographic distance 

between Exchange headquarters and certain satellites and 

sites. (Army & AF Exchange Service, NW Area Exchange, 

Fort Lewis, Wash., A/SLMR No. 338)

Single-installation unit held appropriate. (AFES, MacDill 

AFB Consolidated Exchange, Fla., A/SLMR No. 29)

A single-facility unit limited to Coast Guard Base held 

appropriate, and petitioned for unit of two facilities, a Coast 

Guard Base and the Office of the District Commander in a 

single city, found inappropriate. (2nd Coast Guard Dstrct., 

St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 93)

Unit limited to WB and GS employees in two field locations of Activity having numerous such locations held inappropriate. (GSA, Region 7, Tex., A/SLMR No. 176)

Unit of GS employees limited to Headquarters and Installation Support Activity (HISA) and to Arsenal, not appropriate. (Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J., A/SLMR No. 203)

Claimed unit of employees found not appropriate where 

it included employees who work in three program services 

in a geographic area within the same region but who do 

not share a clear and identifiable community of interest 

because employees have little or no commonality other than 

they work in the same geographic area. (GSA, Fresno, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 293)

Unit of all GS and WB employees of one project office 

and all WB employees of another office following reorganization involving a merger of the two offices found not 

appropriate where the parties stipulated that the WB employees of each office constituted separate and distinct units, and 

the reorganization did not substantially or materially change 

the scope or character of the units involved. (Bureau of 

Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, A/SLMR No. 318)

20
20 12 64

20 12 60

Siagle Installatioo

Unit limited to one powerhouse facility at five within 

Activity’s District held appropriate. (Army Corps of 

Engnrs., Mobile Dstrct., A/SLMR No. 7)

A single-facility unit limited to Coast Guard Base held 

appropriate and petitioned for unit of two facilities, a Coast 

Guard Base and the Office of the District Commander in a 

single city, a total of 15 facilities of the Activity serving 22 

states, found inappropriate. (2nd Coast Guard Dstrct, St. 

Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 93)

Single-installation unit is appropriate, although recently 

consolidated for administrative purposes with two other 

installations. (Altus AFB Exchange, Okla., A/SLMR No. 

179)

Single-installation unit appropriate because of substantial 

distance between claimed unit and other installations and 

lack of employee interchange. (Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Norton AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No. 191)

Unit limited to employees of one of two Job Corps Centers in Region of Bureau of Reclamation appropriate where, 

among other things, it is under different immediate supervision; and there has been no interchange. (Interior, Weber 

Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Cntr., Ogden, Utah, 

A/SLMR No. 204)

Separate units of individual Weather Service Office of 

the National Weather Service located in its Central Region 

are appropriate. (Nat’l. Weather Service, Central Region, 

A/SLMR No. 331)

Single-installation units appropriate where employees in 

units have the same immediate terms and conditions of 

employment, are separated geographically from other employees of Exchange, do not interchange with employees 

of the other components of the Exchange and authority to 

hire and discipline exists at local level, with final authority 

for such actions resting in Exchange General Manager. 

(AAFES, NW Area Exchange, Fort Lewis, Wash., A/SLMR 

No. 338)

Unit limited to employees in only one of five field operations branches of Activity’s Division held inappropriate 

because of lack of clear and identifiable community of 

interest among employees sought. (DSA, DCSAR, Atlanta, 

Ga., A/SLMR No. 4)

Of two proposed units. State-wide unit of all WB and GS 

Army National Guard technicians held appropriate, and 

single-installation unit of such technicians held inappropriate. (Pa. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 9)

Unit of all nonsupervisory GS employees at Activity’s 

Materials Engineering Laboratory, which is one of Activity’s 

17 offices and directorates, held inappropriate since such 

employees do not possess clear and identifiable community 

of interest. (Army, Picatinny Arsenal, Doxer, N.J., A/SLMR 

No. 40)

Of two proposed units. State-wide unit of all nonsupervisory GS and WB technicians in Air National Guard found 

appropriate, and single-installation unit of such technicians 

held inappropriate. (Ohio Nat’i. Guard A/SLMR No. 44)

Unit limited to employees in only one school in the 

European Area which contains 218 schools held inappropriate. (DOD Overseas Dependent Schools, A/SLMR No. 

110)

Separate units of all nonsupervisory GS employees of 

6486th Supply Squadron and of 6486th Services Squadron, 

or an alternative unit combining the above employees, all 

held appropriate. (6486th Air Base Wing, Hickam Air Field, 

Hawaii, A/SLMR No. 119)

Nation-wide unit of all flight service specialists (FSS) 

employed at flight service stations of Activity, except those 

at which the petition is barred because of existing agreements or certifications of representation issued within the 

period of 12 months immediately preceding the filing of the 

petition, is appropriate, and narrow unit of FSS at a single 

station held inappropriate, (FAA, A/SLMR No. 122)

Unit of technicians of certain support groups only and 

limited to one of multiple locations of Activity in State, not 

appropriate because of no community of interest separate 

and distinct from other technicians. (Miss. Nat’l. Guard, 

Thompson Field and Camp Shelby, A/SLMR No. 123)

Unit limited to employees at duty stations outside of 

Forest Supervisor’s office held inappropriate. (Sierra Nat’l. 

Forest, Calif., A/SLMR 156)

Unit limited to employees at one location of Officers’ 

Open Mess, which is one of six non-appropriated fund 

(NAF) operations of Activity, held inappropriate. (HQ & 

Installation Support Activity (AVSCOM), St. Louis, Mo., 

A/SLMR No. 165)

Two separate units, each limited to one of 16 components 

of Activity, held inappropriate. (HEW, HSMHA, Metropolitan Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 192)

Petitioned for unit of all employees of Army Aviation 

Detachment, one of 12 subdivisions of Headquarters and 

Installation Support Activity which provides overall maintenance support to Army Electronics Command at Fort 

Monmouth, found inappropriate. (Army, ECOM, Fort 

Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 258)

Despite reorganization, petitioned for unit found not 

appropriate where claimed employees remained In the exclusively recognized unit currently represented by an exclusive 

bargaining agent and covered by an existing agreement. 

(AMC Ammunition Centr., Savanna Army Depot, 111., 

A/SLMR No. 291)

Petitioned for unit of all employees of a Laboratory 

Complex which Is the physical site for only four of the 

twelve Research Units under the jurisdiction of the Area 

Director, Southwest Arizona-New Mexico Area of the 

Agency, to whom each of the Research Units reports 

directly, found inappropriate. (Bee Research Lab Complex, 

Tucson, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 369)

20 12 64

Occupational Classification

Unit limited to one WB job series appropriate but single 

unit of three WB job series not appropriate. (Material Command, Red River Army Depot, A/SLMR No. 131)

Nationwide unit comprised solely of all Air Traffic Control Specialists (Controllers) employed at air traffic control 

terminals, air traffic control centers, and combined stations 

and towers (except those at which petition is barred because

21
20 16 04

of certifications or negotiated agreements) held appropriate. 

(FAA, A/SLMR No. 173)

Unit limited to Air Traffic Controllers, excluding Teletype Operators and Flight Data Aides, found appropriate. 

(FAA, Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 231)

Unit of all nonsupervisory livestock inspectors employed 

by Activity in one State found appropriate. (Vet. ServicesAnimal Health Program, Madison, Wis., A/SLMR No. 249)

Separate unit of registered nurses found appropriate. 

(HEW, Public Health Service Hospital, Boston-Brighton, 

Mass., A/SLMR No. 267)

Unit of custodial employees employed at two Activities 

is not appropriate because employees included do not share 

clear and identifiable community of interest. <Army Special 

Services, Ft. Benning, Ga., A/SLMR No. 36)

Two alternative proposed units of Procurement Office 

employees at NASA Headquarters—one comprised of all 

nonsupervisory GS employes, including professionals, and 

the other comprised of professional employees only—^found 

inappropriate. (NASA, A/SLMR No. 46)

Unit of all employees holding electrical ratings in Activity’s Production Department found inappropriate. (Naval Air 

Rework Facility, Alameda, Cal., A/SLMR No. 49)

Unit of Production Controllers and Electronic Technicians in A.ctivity’s Operations Analysis Division found 

inappropriate. (Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, 

Fla., A/SLMR No. 59)

Unit of pharmacists at Veterans Administration Hospital 

held inappropriate. (VA Hospital, Lexington, Ky., A/SLMR 

No. 22)

Unit of nurses at Veterans Administration Hospital held 

appropriate. (VA Hospital, Buffalo, New York, A/SLMR 

No. 60)

Unit of employees working in Navy Calibration and in 

Industrial Calibration Laboratories of Activity’s Production 

and Production Engineering Departments, respectively, held 

inappropriate. (Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 61)

Unit composed solely of all customs inspectors in Region 

found inappropriate. (Bureau of Customs, Region V, New 

Orleans, La., A/SLMR No. 65)

Unit limited to employees in only one of five divisions 

of Production Engineering Department held inappropriate. 

(Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR 

No. 75)

Unit limited to nine employees in only one of Activity’s 

approximately 20 branches held inappropriate. (Cmndr. 

Service Force, Atlantic Fleet, A/SLMR No. 78)

Unit limited to teletype employees of Activity held inappropriate. (GSA, Atlanta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 109)

Unit of technicians of certain support groups only and 

limited to one of multiple locations of Activity in State, 

inappropriate. (Miss. Nat’l. Guard, Thompson Field and 

Camp Shelby, A/SLMR No. 123)

Unit limited to employees holding pneumatic ratings in 

Activity’s Power Plant Division held inappropriate. (Naval

Air Rework Facility, NAS, Alameda, Calif., A/SLMR No. 

158)

Unit of GS Army reserve technicians limited to 4 of 13 

Army Reserve Commands serviced by same Civilian Personnel Office, inappropriate. (Army, HQ., Camp McCoy, 

Wise., St. Louis Metro Area, A/SLMR No. 166)

Two alternative proposed units of boat operating personnel at Statue of Liberty National Monument—one comprised 

of all regular and regular part-time Motorboat Operators 

and Deckhands on Liberty Island Launch; alternative comprised solely of Motorboat Operators—both found inappropriate. (Statue of Liberty, Liberty Island, N.Y., A/SLMR 

No. 171)

Unit limited to Investigators and Investigative Aides in 

Activity’s Investigation Division, held inappropriate. (CSC, 

San Francisco Region, A/SLMR No. 175)

Activity-wide unit of all nonsupervisory and nonprofessional employees, appropriate, and narrower unit limited to 

Quality Inspection Specialists, inappropriate. (Lone Star 

Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex. A/SLMR No. 

187)

Unit of nonsupervisory livestock inspectors of Activity in 

Wisconsin held appropriate on functional basis specified in 

Sec. 10(b) of EO. (Vet. Services-Animal Health Program, 

Madison, Wise., A/SLMR N. 249)

Separate unit of registered nurses, rather than unit of all 

employees of Activity, is appropriate. (HEW, Public Health 

Service Hospital, Boston-Brighton, Mass., A/SLMR No. 

267)

20 16 00

Special Situations

20 16 04

Severance

For future guidance, A/S announced that, except in unusual circumstances, it will best effectuate policies of EO 

not to sever unit from existing unit where evidence shows 

that established, effective and fair collective bargaining relationship is in existence. (Naval Construction Battalion 

Cntr., Davisville, R.I., A/SLMR No. 8)

Petition for unit of most of WB employees which, in effect, would sever such group from existing unit of both WB 

and GS employees, held inappropriate and petition dismissed 

where: (1) employees in proposed unit do not have clear 

and identifiable, separate community of interest which would 

entitle them to separate representation; (2) unlike existing 

unit, proposed unit would tend to promote neither effective 

dealings nor efficiency of agency operations. Comprehensive 

existing unit, rather than petitioned unit, is appropriate because, within existing unit, there are: (1) common benefits 

and hours; (2) transfer and interchange; (3) common labor 

policies; (4) integrated operations; (5) bargaining history; 

and, (6) centralized administration. Effective dealings between parties and efficiency of operations have been promoted by existing relationship which has been effective and 

fair, and interests of WB employees have not been neglected. 

(Naval Construction Battalion Cntr., Davisville R T 

A/SLMR No. 8) . •

A/S denied craft severance, sought in two separate petitions for: (1) unit of machinists and related classifications;

22
20 16 08

and, (2) unit of pipe coverers and insulators and related 

classifications because: (a) evidence shows established, effective and fair collective bargaining relationship exists for employees involved in proposed severance; (b) there is marked 

degree of integration of work processes; and (c) in spite of 

history of separate representation for some of crafts at Activity and recognized craft status for number erf classifications petitioned for, the craft skills and training are only 

some of multiple factors to be considered and are insufficient 

grounds for proposed severance. (Boston Naval Shipyard, 

A/SLMR No. 18)

Severance of guards from .combined guard-nonguard unit 

is consistent with purposes and policies of EO. (GSA, Region 

9, San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 333; Naval Station, 

Newport, R.I., A/SLMR No. 326; Rocky Mountain Arsenal, 

Denver, Colo., A/SLMR No. 325; and, U.S. Mint, Phila., 

Pa., A/SLMR No. 45)

Severance of unit of certain inspectors held inappropriate 

where inspectors do not possess clear and identifiable community of interest apart from other production and maintenance employees (Hunters Ft. Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR 

No. 62)

Severance of unit of Tool and Gauge Checkers from existing production and maintenance unit held inappropriate. 

(Rock Island Arsenal, 111., A/SLMR No. 63)

Severance denied for unit of all nonsupervisory OS and 

WB employees at one of Activity’s depots from existing 

multi-depot unit. (GSA, Raritan Depot, Edison, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 66)

Severance of firefighters from existing Activity-wide unit 

denied, absent unusual circumstances, although facts might 

lead to different outcome were this case of initial organization. (Naval Air Station and Naval Air Test Cntr., Patuxent 

River, Md., A/SLMR No. 73)

Severance of registered nurses from larger professional 

unit denied. (VA Cntr., Togus, Maine, A/SLMR No. 85)

Severance of registered nurses from Activity-wide unit of 

professional and nonprofessional employees denied. (VA 

Cntr., Mountain Home, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 89)

Unit which would exclude Canteen employees from existing, more comprehensive unit in existence since 1965 held 

inappropriate. (VA Hospital, E. Orange, N.J., A/SLMR No. 

92)

Severance of guards from combined guard-nonguard unit 

is consistent with purposes and policies of EO in light of 

Sec. 10(b)(3) and Sec. 10(c), despite history of bargaining 

in combined unit, and constitutes exception to policy enunciated in United States Naval Construction Battalion Center,

A/SLMR No. 8. (U.S. Mint, Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 45; 

DSA, Defense Depot, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 107)

Severance of firefighters from existing Activity-wide unit 

denied. (Naval Air Station, Moffet Field, Cal., A/SLMR No. 

130)

Severance from Activity-wide unit denied for either unit 

of nonsupervisory WB employees or, in alternative, unit of 

nonsupervisory WB employees and GS employees who work 

in clerical capacity in direct support of the WB employees. 

(Military Academy, West Point, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 133)

Severance of firefighters from existing Activity-wide unit 

denied. (Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 150; affirmed FLRC No. 72A-24)

Severance from existing unit denied where there is no 

evidence that incumbent labor organization has failed to 

represent petitioned for employees in fair and effective manner. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 173; Naval Air Station, Quonset 

Pt., R.I., A/SLMR No. 201; Interior, BIA, Fort Apache 

Agency, Phoenix, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 363)

Severance denied for unit of Production Controllers and 

Electronic Technicians in Operations Analysis Division from 

existing, and essentially, Activity-wide unit, where claimed 

employees have been part of larger unit for some time and 

there is no evidence that they have been ineffectively or unfairly represented. (Naval Rework Facility, Quonset Pt., 

R.I., A/SLMR No. 215)

Severance of Air Traffic Controllers from existing unit of 

Controllers and Teletype Operators denied where: (1) there 

was no evidence that either Controllers or Teletype Operators in unit had been represented in other than fair and 

effective manner; (2) contention that if existing unit remained 

intact and Petitioner exclusive representative, interests of 

Teletype Operators might suffer, since substantially all other 

employees represented by Petitioner are Controllers, was 

deemed speculative and without merit; and (3) Petitioner expressed willingness to represent employees in any unit 

deemed appropriate. (FAA, Southern Region, Miami ATC 

and Miami ATC Tower, Fla., A/SLMR No. 234)

Petition seeking to sever-a unit of all Staff Nurses from 

an existing. Activity-wide unit found not appropriate because 

the record failed to establish that the incumbent labor organization had failed or refused to render fair and effective 

representation to employees sought. Applying the principles 

enunciated in United States Naval Construction Battalion

Center, A/SLMR No. 8, A/S dismissed the petition. (VA 

Hospital, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR No. 308)

Severance denied for a claimed unit of Planners and Estimators and Maintenance Schedulers in Public Works Department from existing, and essentially Activity-wide unit, where 

claimed employees have been represented by incumbent for 

over 10 years and there was no evidence that the employees 

sought had not been effectively and fairly represented or 

that their community of interest with the other employees 

in the existing unit had been destroyed. (Philadelphia Naval 

Shipyard, Pa., A/SLMR No. 382)

20 16 08 

Accretion

Agreement covering comprehensive unit at Activity does 

not bar election for unit of powerhouse employees because: 

(1) agreement was executed before subject powerhouse became operational and has not since been applied to powerhouse; and (2) powerhouse does not constitute addition or 

accretion to existing unit because of separate supervision 

and lack of interchange of personnel. (Army Corps of 

Engnrs, Mobile Dstrct., A/SLMR No. 7)

Activity acquisition of jurisdiction over an Outpatient 

Clinic raised the question of whether such acquisition represents an accretion or addition to the existing unit already 

exclusively represented by a labor organization. A/S found 

it unnecessary to decide the accretion issue because of a 

finding that the more comprehensive unit petitioned for, of 

which the Outpatient Clinic was a portion, is inappropriate. 

(VA Hospital, E. Orange, N.J., A/SLMR No. 92)

Motor pool employees transferred to Activity do not constitute addition or accretion to existing area-wide unit. (GSA,

23
20 16 16

Region 10, Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., 

A/SLMR No. 146)

Petitioned for unit, transferred when facility closed, constitutes addition or accretion to existing unit exclusively represented by Intervenor where: (a) although transferred unit 

is tenant at its new Base, existing unit at such Base covers 

various other tenants and host organization; (b) at new location all employees, including those of claimed unit, (1) share 

same physical location and, in many instances, same facilities; (2) participate in training and other programs; (3) are 

subject to same personnel policies, including promotion and 

RIF procedures, administered centrally; and (4) have similar 

skills and related job classifications; and (c) employees in 

claimed unit have been physically and administratively integrated with employees in existing unit and are engaged in 

functionally similar work, with interchange and transfer between the two groups. Accordingly, as petitioned for employees have been effectively merged into exclusively recognized unit and as such unit was covered by agreement at time 

of petition, petition dismissed. (434th S.O.W., Grissom Air 

Force Base, Ind., A/SLMR No. 149)

Exclusively represented unit of employees at Fort Dix 

Post Exchange is clarified (and name of Activity is changed) 

to include unrepresented employees formerly employed by 

McGuire Air Force Base Exchange. (AAFES, Dix-McGuire 

Consolidated Exchange, Fort Dix, N.J., A/SLMR No. 195)

A/S found that reorganization involving unit of 67 guards 

allegedly being merged into unit of 10 guards did not raise 

good faith doubt of majority status in latter unit in that reorganization was administrative only and no accretion occurred. A/S noted employees of one unit had not been so 

thoroughly combined and integrated into the remaining unit 

that one had lost its separate identity and that its employees 

lost their separate and distinct community of interest. Accordingly, RA petition dismissed. (Army, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground Command, Md., A/SLMR No. 282)

Professional employees of a mixed unit of professionals 

and nonprofessionals of a discontinued activity constitute an 

accretion to an existing unit of professionals, and the nonprofessional employees of the same mixed unit of professionals and nonprofessionals constitute an accretion to an 

existing unit of nonprofessionals. (Army Safeguard Systems 

Com., Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 288)

Employees of Maintenance Division of Kennedy Center 

Support Group did not constitute addition or accretion to 

existing, exclusively recognized unit of employees of the 

National Capital Parks. (JFK Cntr., Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 305)

Abolishing one facility and assigning its functions to another facility did not substantially or materially change the 

scope and character of existing units. (Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, A/SLMR No. 318)

Accretion occurred where employees in the professional 

and nonprofessional units at former Outpatient Clinic were 

thoroughly combined and integrated into the existing units 

at Hospital. (VA Hospital, Columbia, S.C., A/SLMR No. 

368)

Petition for clarification of unit seeking to clarify an existing exclusively recognized bargaining unit by adding approximately 46 unrepresented employees of the former Kirtland 

Air Force Base Exchange to the 116 employees of the former 

Sandia Base Exchange unit who currently are represented

by an exclusive representative is denied. Notwithstanding 

reorganization, there remain viable and identifiable groups 

of employees performing the former Sandia Base Exchange 

and Kirtland Air Force Base Exchange functions. (Army & 

AF Exchange Service, Kirtland AFB Exchange, Dallas, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 371)

Joint petitions for clarification of existing, exclusively recognized unit denied where, among other things, the employees were not so thoroughly combined or integrated as to 

constitute accretions or additions to previously existing 

units. (Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, A/SLMR No. 

389)

No accretion found as a result of reorganization and, 

therefore. Respondent held not obligated to consult, confer, 

or negotiate witfi the Complainant with regard to administratively transferred employees. (Nat’l. Oceanic & Atmospheric'Admin., Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 285)

20 16 12

Eligibility

In case involving “seasonal” employees where majority 

have been employed on regular basis and work different intervals during year, voting eligibility period encompasses employees engaged at any time between January 1, 1971 and 

payroll period ending immediately prior to date of Decision. 

(Santa Fe National Forest, N.M., A/SLMR No. 88)

Seasonal Supervisor, who acts as supervisor four months 

per year and spends remaining eight months of year as rankand-file employee, included in unit only during period he 

spends as rank-and-file employee, and is eligible to vote only 

if election is held during period that he is rank-ahd-file employee. (Bureau of Land Mgt., District Office, Lakeview, 

Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

Certain employees geographically located within Region, 

excluded because they did not share a clear and identifiable 

community of interest with the Regional employees. (GSA, 

Region 2, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

Certain employees geographically located outside the Region, included because they shared a clear and identifiable 

community of interest with the Regional employees. (GSA, 

Region 2, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

20 16 16

Residual Employees

Residual, base-wide unit of all nonsupervisory WB employees, not currently covered by exclusive recognition, appropriate where: (1) this group generally has common terms 

and conditions of employment; (2) it includes all of remaining unrepresented WB employees at Activity; and, (3) no 

other labor organization is seeking to represent these employees on any other basis. (Naval Air Station, Alameda, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 6)

Employees in southern branch of Activity’s Eastern Region constitute appropriate residual unit under all circumstances, including recent reorganization of Activity and fact 

that employees sought are the only remaining unrepresented 

employees in Region. (FAA, Airway Facilities Div., Eastern 

Region, A/SLMR No. 94)

Residual unit of all remaining unrepresented employees at 

Activity found appropriate based on: (1) common overall 

mission of patient care; (2) common location; and (3) respon24
20 16 24

sibility to same administrator. (HEW, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 102)

Combination residual unit of unrepresented employees and 

some employees already represented on an exclusive basis, 

proposed by Activity, held inappropriate because the exclusive representative had not waived its exclusive recognition 

status. (HEW, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Wash., D.C., A / 

SLMR No. 102)

Motor pool employees, including GS office employees of 

motor pool, constitute appropriate residual unit where: (a) 

these employees combined are the only remaining unrepresented employee group at Activity; (b) they share clear and 

identifiable community of interest in that all are engaged in 

common mission of operating motor pool, are located in 

same general area, and share common overall supervision; 

and (c) Activity contention that claimed unit would fragment 

established area-wide employee representation and would not 

promote effective dealings and efficiency of operations is not 

supported by evidence, which is within special knowledge 

of, and must be submitted by. Activity involved. (GSA, Region 10, Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., 

A/SLMR No. 146)

Petition for Regionwide unit is untimely with respect to 

agreement covering an exclusive unit of one component District of Region but residual unit of all unrepresented employees in Region is appropriate where: (a) entire Region has 

common: (1) hiring policies; (2) duties within same classification; (3) evaluation requirements; (4) pay policy; (5) centralized supervisory hierarchy; and (6) personnel and labor 

relations policies; (b) there is substantial degree of transfer 

within Region; and (c) there is high degree of organizational 

cooperation and interrelationship in achieving Activity mission. (Customs Bureau, Region IV, A/SLMR No. 152)

Residual statewide unit of all California Air National 

Guard civilian technicians, including technicians of 146th 

Tactical Airlift Wing and of four unrepresented squadrons 

of 261st Mobile Communications Group, considered appropriate, rather than petitioned for unit comprised solely of 

technicians in 146th Tactical Airlift Wing. (Cal. Air Nat’l. 

Guard HQ., 146th Tactical Airlift Wing, Van Nuys, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 259)

Residual, area-wide unit of all nonsupervisory school personnel in some 32 schools (including five established after 

petition was filed), not currently covered by exclusive recognition, found appropriate. (Army, U.S. Dependents’ Schools, 

European Area, A/SLMR No. 260)

Residual Activity-wide unit found appropriate excluding 

two installations at which petition was barred because of 

negotiated agreements. (Bureau of the Mint, A/SLMR No. 

262)

Residual unit of all employees of the Kennedy Center 

Support Group, including those in the Division of Visitor 

Services, considered appropriate rather than unit limited to 

petitioned for employees of Maintenance Division of Kennedy Center Support Group. (JFK Center, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 305)

Residual area-wide unit of Federal Protective Officers, 

except those in recognized units where agreement bars exist, 

held appropriate. (GSA, Region 3, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 347)

Residual, Activity-wide unit of professional and nonprofessional GS employees found appropriate. (DSA, Tracy, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 386)

Residual, Regionwide unit of all unrepresented nonprofessional employees, found appropriate. (DSA, DCAS, Boston, 

Mass., A/SLMR No. 391)

20 16 20

Self-Determination

(For self-determination involving professional employees, 

see: 20 20 00, “Employee Categories and Classifications, 

Professional Employees”. See also: 20 12 64, “Occupational Classification”).

Plumbers, pipefitters and related classifications woiking in 

Activity’s Maintenance Division may constitute a separate 

appropriate unit or be included in more comprehensive 

residual, base-wide unit of all nonsupervisory WB employees not covered currently by exclusive recognition. Plumbers, pipefitters and related classifications are granted a selfdetermination election because they work in close proximity 

to each other, with common supervision, and constitute 

functionally distinct craft, with clear and identifiable community of interest. Insufficient evidence was offered to establish that the plunibers unit would not promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations within meaning 

of Sec. 10(b) of EO, particularly in view of past history 

of Activity having accorded exclusive recognition to six 

separate units, without any record evidence of impairment of 

effective dealings or efficiency of operations. (Naval Air 

Station, Alameda, Cal., A/SLMR No. 6)

Nonprofessional employees working in laboratory situation and with animals in animal breeding or holding areas 

may constitute separate appropriate unit or be included in 

more comprehensive. Activity-wide unit of nonprofessional 

employees and, accordingly, are granted self-determination 

election where employees in each of these two claimed 

units: (a) share centralized personnel program and staff 

services and generally have same terms and conditions of 

employment; but (b) are physically separated and have 

little actual day-to-day contact; (c) have different functions, 

and generally, different backgrounds, interests and goals; 

and (d) have minimal transfers and interchange. In granting 

self-determination, A/S noted that Sec. 10(b) of EO 

specifically permits establishment of unit on functional basis 

and found narrower group constitutes functionally distinct 

group, with clear and indentifiable community of interest, 

which narrower group. Activity acknowledged, would not 

adversely affect efficiency of operations. (HEW, Cntr. for 

Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 132)

Self-determination election granted professionals, including registered nurses, in an Activity-wide unit of professional 

and nonprofessional emplyees at Veterans Administration 

Hospital. (VA Hospital, Tampa, Fla., A/SLMR No. 330)

20 16 24

Supervisory Unit

Unit of supervisory licensed marine engineers found 

appropriate under Sec. 24(2) of EO where Union involved 

had traditionally represented exclusively units of licensed 

marine engineers in private industry and also at Activity 

on effective date of EO. (Navy, Military Sealift Command, 

A/SLMR No. 245)

25
20 20 00

20 16 28 

Reorganization

CU Petition, treated as RA petition, dismissed where, 

despite reorganization of Activity which added new duties 

and employees, previously certified unit remained viable 

because employees in certified unit generally continued to 

perform same duties as they had prior to reorganization, 

with new employees performing the added functions, and 

with minimal interchange, transfer or commingling between 

the two groups of employees. (HUD, Indianapolis, Ind., 

Area Office, A/SLMR No. 202)

Even after reorganization, petition for smaller unit found 

not appropriate where claimed employees remained in the 

exclusively recognized unit currently represented, by an 

exclusive collective bargaining agent and covered by an existing collective bargaining agreement. (AMC Ammunition 

Cntr., Savanna Army Depot, 111., A/SLMR No. 291)

Unit limited to employees of Activity’s Flight Inspection 

District Office, found appropriate even subsequent to reorganization. (FAA, Battle Creek, Mich., A/SLMR No. 313)

RA petition dismissed where Activity’s reorganization did 

not substantially or materially change the scope or character 

of 3 existing units of employees. (Bureau of Reclamation, 

Lower Colorado Region, A/SLMR No. 318)

Employees of the Health and Safety Analysis Center, 

formerly within the Bureau, but now, due to a recent reorganization, part of the newly created Mine Enforcement and 

Safety Administration of the Department of the Interior, 

continued to share a community of interest with the employees of the Bureau serviced by the Western Administrative 

Office, Branch of Personnel and should be included in the 

unit found appropriate. (Bureau of Reclamation, Lower 

Colorado Region, A/SLMR No. 318)

A/S rejected Activity contention that GS employees of 

the Army Strategic Communications Command and the 

Army Health Services Command should be excluded from 

the appropriate unit due to reorganization which removed 

them from the administrative control of the Base Commander. (HQ., Army Training Cntr., and Ft. Leonard 

Wood, Mo., A/SLMR No. 328)

Despite a recent reorganization which established CSLA 

as a separate Activity, the employees of CSLA continued to 

share a community of interest with employees in the existing 

unit. (Strategic Communications Com., Ft. Huachuca, Ariz., 

A/SLMR No. 351)

Where Activity petitioned for an election in a unit of all 

of its eligible electronic and electro-mechanical technicians, 

including such technicians represented on an exclusive basis 

by the lAM, on the grounds that a recent reorganization of 

its operations had rendered the lAM unit inappropriate, 

the A/S dismissed petition finding the lAM unit remained 

intact after the reorganization and continued to be appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition. (DOT, SW 

Region, Tulsa Airway Facilities Sector, Tulsa, Okla., 

A/SLMR No. 364)

As a result of a reorganization which involved Outpatient 

Clinic being abolished and its functions and personnel 

merged and absorbed by the Hospital, the employees of 

the former Outpatient Clinic became intermingled with 

those of the Hospital and accreted to the existing employee

bargaining units. (VA Hospital, Columbia, S.C., A/SLMR 

No. 368)

Petition for clarification of unit seeking to clarify an 

existing exclusively recognized bargaining unit by adding 

approximately 46 unrepresented employees of the former 

Kirtland Air Force Base Exchange to 116 employees of 

the former Sandia Base Exchange unit who currently are 

represented by an exclusive representative is denied. Notwithstanding reorganization, there remain viable and identifiable groups of employees performing the former Sandia 

Base Exchange and kirtland Air Force Base Exchange functions. (Army & AF Exchange Service, Kirtland AFB Exchange, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 371)

Following transfer of function from one command to 

another, employees involved in the transfer continued to 

perform job functions similar to those previously performed, 

under similar working conditions and at the same general 

location. Established bargaining unit clarified to include 

transferred functional group. (Camp McCoy, Sparta, Wise., 

A/SLMR No. 377)

Despite administrative merger which resulted from reorganization, joint petitions for clarification of existing, exclusively recognized unit denied. (Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, 

Ut^h, A/SLMR No. 389)

Following reorganization, consolidated unit of three former units found appropriate and election directed pursuant 

to an RA petition where there is a clear and identifiable 

community of interest within claimed unit and former units 

no longer hold communities of interest separate and distinct 

from each other. (Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 

A/SLMR No. 394)

Unit of three U.S. Army Communications Command 

Agency (USACC) directorates formed as a result of a 

reorganization which placed all communication related 

activities under same major command found not appropriate. 

(Army Communications Com. Agency, Ft. Sam Houston, 

Texas, A/SLMR No. 398)

20 20 00

Employee Categories and Classifications

Accountant is professional employee. (Lone Star Army 

Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex., A/SLMR No. 187; 

Army Safeguard Logistics Command, and Army Safeguard 

Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Adnunistrativ« Employees included in unit with Deputy 

United States Marshals. (U.S. Marshal’s Office, Northern 

Dstrct. of 111., A/SLMR No. 197; U.S. Marshal’s Office, 

Northiern Dstrct. of Ga., A/SLMR No. 198)

Attorneys

(See also: 10 32 00, “Qualifications to Represent Specified 

Categories of Employees”)

Attorneys in claimed unit are professional employees and 

.are afforded opportunity to vote whether they desire to be 

represented at all and, if so, whether in unit limited to 

professional employees or in more comprehensive unit. 

Question ctf whether Attorneys are precluded from joining, 

or being represented by, labor organization which admits to 

membership non-Attorneys, by various canons, codes or 

opinions of bar associations, involves interpretation of such 

provisions, and such interpretation is neither determinative

26
20 20 00

nor within scope of A/S proceeding. (Treasury, Office of 

Regional Counsel, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 161; IRS, 

Birmingham Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186; Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Army Safeguard Systems 

Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Architect is professional employee. (Agriculture, Farmers 

Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 205)

Assistant County Supervisors are not professional employees where general college background is sufficient to perform 

required job function. (Agriculture, Farmers Home Adm., 

Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 205)

Auditor is professional employee. (Army Safeguard 

Logistics Command and Army Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Biologist, Wildlife is professional employee. (Bureau of 

Land Mgt., Dstrct Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 

276)

Bond Sales Promotional Specialists, GS-011, (in job classifications of: public affairs trainee, industrial payroll savings 

committee assistant, special projects assistant, and promotion assistant) not professional employees. (Treaury, U.S. 

Saving Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Casual Employees. “Casual Employees” with no reasonable expectancy of regular employment, are excluded from 

unit. (Army and AF Exchange, So. Cal. Exchange Region, 

A/SLMR No. 26; Alaskan Exchange System, Base Exchange, A/SLMR No. 33; Army and AF Exchange, Fort 

Huachuca, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 167; Bureau of Land Mgt., 

District Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

Clerical Employees included in unit with Deputy United 

States Marshals. (U.S. Marshal’s Office, Northern Dstrct 

of 111., A/SLMR No. 197; U.S. Marshal’s Office, Northern 

Dstrct of Ga„ A/SLMR No. 198)

Classified Activities. Employees engaged in work of classified nature not excluded from otherwise appropriate unit. 

(Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Confidential Employees

Access to Information. Employees who merely have access 

to personnel or statistical information are not deemed confidential employees. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Administrative Specialists (Battery Level). Although confidential employees are not specifically barred from inclusion in appropriate unit with other employees by Sec. 10(b) 

of EO, it would effectuate policies of EO to exclude Administrative Specialists (Battery Level) from unit where such 

employees assist and act in confidential capacity to persons 

who formulate and effectuate management policies in field 

of labor relations. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Clerical Assistant is confidential employee. (FAA, Airway 

Facilities Sector, Ft. Worth, Texas, A/SLMR No. 230)

Clerical Assistant to Personnel Officer excluded from unit 

because of confidential capacity to officials engaged in formulation and effectuation of labor relations policy. (St. Louis 

Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Criminal Investigator is not confidential employee where 

he is not privy to any confidential information with respect 

to labor relations and does not act in confidential capacity 

to persons who formulate or effectuate management policies

in field of labor relations. (Francis Marion and Sumter 

National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 227)

Clerk-Stenographer is confidential employee. (FAA, Airway Facilities Sector, Ft. Worth, Texas, A/SLMR No. 230)

Clerk-Stenographers are not confidential employees. 

(FAA, SW Reg. Airway Facilities Sector, Albuquerque, 

N.M., A/SLMR No. 342)

Clerk-Typist, GS-3 is not a confidential employee. (Naval 

Station, Adak, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 321)

District Ranger Clerks are confidential employees. (Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR 

No. 227)

Executive Secretary to Director of Activity is confidential 

employee. (Dep’t. of Treasury, Division of Disbursement, 

Birmingham, Ala., A/SLMR No. 217)

Forest District Clerk found to be excluded from appropriate unit as a confidential employee because in this classification acts in a confidential capacity to officials who 

effectuate management policies in field of labor relations. 

(Mark Twain National Forest, Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR 

No. 303)

Operations Specialist excluded from unit because of confidential capacity to persons who formulate or effectuate 

labor relations policies and regular access to confidential 

labor relations material. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 

69)

Personnel Clerk-Headquarters found to be excluded from 

appropriate unit as a confidential employee because employee in this classification acts in a confidential capacity to 

officials who formulate and effectuate management policies 

in the field of labor relations and has access to confidential 

labor relations materials. (Mark Twain National Forest, 

Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR No. 303)

Personnel Clerk (Typing), GS-5 to Personnel Management Specialist is not confidential employee. (Pa. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

Secretaries excluded from unit as “confidential employees” :

Secretary to Airways Facility Manager (FAA, Airway 

Facilities Sector, Ft. Worth, Texas, A/SLMR No. 230)

Secretary to Area Director (Portland, Ore. Area Office, 

HUD, A/SLMR No. Ill)

Secretaries to Directorate Directors, and to higher level

officials (Army Base Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR No. 

243)

Secretaries to District Director, Assistant District Director, Administration Division Chief, Personnel Branch Chief,

Audit Division Chief, and Collection and Taxpayer Service

Division Chief (IRS, Birmingham Dstrct, Ala., A/SLMR 

No. 186)

Secretaries to District Directors (Customs, Region IX, 

Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Secretary to District Manager (Bureau of Land Mgt., 

District Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

Secretary to Flight Inspection District Office Chief (FAA, 

Battle Creek, Mich., A/SLMR No. 313)

27
20 20 00

Secretary (Typing), GS-5 to the Personnel Officer (Pa. 

Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

Secretaries to Regional Commissioner, Assistant Regional

Commissioners and District Directors (Customs Bureau, 

Region IV, A/SLMR No. 152)

Secretaries to Regional Director, Deputy Regional Director, and Labor Relations Officer (St. Louis Region, CSC, 

A/SLMR No. 162)

Conservationist, Range is professional employee. (Bureau 

of Land Mgt. Dstrct Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 

276)

Contract Assistant is not professional employee. (Francis 

Marion and Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 

227)

Custodial Employees

(See also Maintenance and Manual Labor)

Custodial employees in separate unit, employed at two 

Activities do not constitute appropriate unit because employees included do not share clear and identifiable community 

of interest. (Army Special Services, Ft. Benning, Ga., 

A/SLMR No, 36)

Custodial and Maintenance Employees in combined unit 

is appropriate. (GSA, PBS, San Francisco, A/SLMR No. 

39)

Design Specialist is professional employee. (Army and 

AF Exchange Service, Elmendorf AFB and Ft. Richardson, 

Anchorage, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 208)

Education and Vocational Training Specialist is professional employee. (Army Safeguard Logistics Command and 

Army Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., 

A/SLMR No. 224)

Engineer is professional employee. (Lone Star Army 

Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Texas, A/SLMR No. 187; 

Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Army Safeguard 

Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224; 

Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR 

No. 227)

Engineer, Civil is professional employee. (Bureau of 

Land Mgt., dstrct Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 

276; Agriculture, Farmers Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., 

A/SLMR No. 205)

Engineer, Marine. Unit of all licensed marine engineers 

employed on all self-propelled hopper and side casting 

dredges operated by Activity is not appropriate. (Army, 

Corps of Engnrs., A/SLMR No. 19)

Engineer, Marine. Activity-wide unit of licensed marine 

engineers is appropriate. (Navy, Military Sealift Command, 

A/SLMR No. 245)

Farm Specialist is professional employee. (Agriculture, 

Farmers Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 

205)

Federal Personnel Work

(See also 05 08 00; “Coverage of Executive Order.”)

Federal Personnel Work. Employees who may make staffing recommendations which could ultimately, after approval 

and implementation, affect the staffing of the Activity, but

who were not involved in the processing of individual personnel actions on a regular basis and as a part of their 

day-to-day responsibilities, are not engaged in Federal personnel work within meaning of Section 10(b)(2) of EO. 

(DSA, Tracy, Cal., A/SLMR No. 386)

Administrative Officer performs Federal personnel work 

in other than purely clerical capacity. (FAA, Airway Facilities Sector, Ft. Worth, Texas, A/SLMR No. 230)

Health Insurance Specialist performs nonclerical Federal 

personnel work. (HEW, Regional Office VI, Dallas, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 266)

Management Analyst is not engaged in nonclerical Federal personnel work within meaning of Sec. 10(b)(2) of EO. 

(DSA, Tracy, Cal., A/SLMR No. 386)

Program Analyst is not engaged in nonclerical Federal 

personnel work within meaning of Sec. 10(b)(2) of EO. 

(DSA, Tracy, Cal., A/SLMR No. 386)

Systems Analyst is not engaged in nonclerical Federal personnel work within meaning of Sec. 10(b)(2) of EO. (DSA, 

Tracy, Cal., A/SLMR No. 386)

Personnel Clerical and Assistance Employees of CivilService Commission who perform routine, repetitive, and 

purely clerical duties are not subject to exclusion of Sec. 

10(b)(2) of EO. (St. Louis Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Personnel Clerks perform Federal persormel work in other 

than purely clerical capacity. (Army and AF Exchange Service, Elmendorf AFB and Ft. Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 208)

Personnel Management Specialists and Personnel Staffing

Specialists of Civil Service Commission, although performing Federal personnel work in other than purely clerical capacity, do not fall within ambit of Sec. 10(b)(2) of EO exclusion where work is performed in connection with employees 

who are employed outside claimed unit. (St. Louis Region, 

CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Senior Staff Assistant performs nonclerical Federal personnel work. (HEW, Regional Office VI, Dallas, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 266)

Training Officer performs nonclerical Federal personnel 

work. (HEW, Regional Office, VI, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 266)

Teachers are not employees engaged in Federal personnel 

work within meaning of Sec. 10(b)(2) of EO, where, among 

other factors, they are engaged solely in teaching. (Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, N.H., A/SLMR No. 2)

Personnel Assistants (Typing), GS-6 and Personnel Assistant, GS-7, are excluded from unit in CU proceeding where 

each is involved in Federal personnel work. (Pa. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

Firefighters

Captains are not supervisors and are included in unit of 

firefighters. (Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR 

No. 30)

Captains. FLRC set aside the decision of A/S in A/SLM R

No. 128 and remanded case to A/S for appropriate action 

based on its finding that (1) any individual who possesses the 

authority to perform a single function described in Sec., 2(c) 

of EO, provided he does so in a manner requiring use of

28
20 20 00

independent judgment, is supervisor and (2) mere review or 

approval of a recommendation by higher ranking official 

does not, in itself, render recommendation ineffective. Accordingly, A/S must examine nature and scope of review to 

determine effectiveness of the recommending authority within meaning of Sec. 2(c). (FLRC No. 72A-11)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 72A-11, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A /SLM R No. 128 and concluded that Fire Captains, GS-7, are supervisors. (Naval Weapons Cntr., China 

Lake, Calif., A/SLMR No. 297)

A/S original holding in A/SLM R No. 128 was that Fire 

Captains, GS-7, and Fire Protection Inspectors, GS-7, were 

not supervisors. (Naval Weapons Cntr., China Lake, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 297)

Captains, Captain-Training Officer, Lieutenants and Inspector-Lieutenant, GS-7 and GS-6, are supervisors. (AEC, 

Idaho Falls, Idaho, A/SLMR No. 128)

Crew Chiefs are not supervisors and are included in unit 

of firefighters. (Army HQ, Army Training Cntr. Engineer, 

Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., A/SLMR No. 183)

Crew Chiefs are not supervisors where they spend a substantial portion of their work time performing duties identical to those performed by other nonsupervisbry firefighters; 

have no authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, 

promote or discharge employees; do not assign work on 

other than a routine basis; and the evidence does not establish that the performance evaluations they prepare are effective. (National Capital Airports, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

405)

Fire Inspectors are not supervisors and are included in 

unit of firefighters. (FAA, Nat’l. Capital Airports, A/SLMR 

No. 91; Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 129; National Capital Airports, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 405)

Guards. Firefighters assigned incidental security functions 

in addition to fire fighting are not “guards” within meaning 

of Sec. 2(d) of EO. (Air Force, AFRES, Youngstown Municipal Airport, A/SLMR No. 12)

Lieutenants are not supervisors and are included in unit 

of firefighters. (FAA, Nat’l. Capital Airports, A/SLMR No. 

91)

Seasonal Supervisors found to perform supervisory functions during firefighting season but not found to perform in 

supervisory capacity during the remainder of the year, excluded from unit during period when exercising supervisory 

functions, and included in the unit during those periods when 

they exercise no supervisory functions. (Angeles National 

Forest, Pasadena, Cal., A/SLMR No. 339)

Supervisory Firefighter (Structural), GS-6 and 7. FLRC 

set aside the decision of A/S in A/SLM R No. 129 and remanded case to A/S for appropriate action based on its 

finding that, with respect to the definition of “supervisor” in 

Sec. 2(c) of EO, the modifying terms adopted in A /S’s decision, e.g., “formal” discipline, “permanent” transfer, “formal” grievances, and “sufficient” authority, are contrary to 

the literal language and purposes of Sec. 2(c) and may not 

be relied upon.

Pursuant to FLRC No. 72A-12, A/S reversed previous 

finding and concluded that Supervisory Firefighters (Structural), GS-7 and GS-6, are supervisors. (Mare Island Naval 

Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 298)

A/S original holding in A /SLM R No. 129 was that Supervisory Firefighters (Structural), GS-7 and GS-6, were not 

supervisors. (Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 129)

Supervisory Firefighter (Structural), GS-7 and 8, commonly referred to as “Station Captains” and “Senior Station 

Captains,” are supervisors. (Holloman AFB, Alamogordo, 

N.M., A/SLMR No. 235)

Training Officers are not supervisors and are included in 

unit of firefighters. (FAA, Nat’l. Capital Airports, A/SLMR 

No. 91)

Flight Service Specialisi. Nationwide unit of all flight service specialists (FSS) employed at flight service stations of 

Activity is appropriate, and narrow unit of FSS at a single 

station is inappropriate. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 122)

Foreign Service Employees. Activity contention that inclusion of Foreign Service employees in unit with GS employees would present difficult, if not insurmountable, 

obstacles to successful negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agreement, and would not promote efficiency of agency operations rejected despite differences 

between the two groups in personnel systems, benefits, rights, 

pay scales and certain conditions of employment, where 

these factors were offset by close working relationship in that 

some Foreign Service employees of Activity work alongside, 

perform same job functions, and have essentially same job 

classifications and supervision, as the GS employees. (ACTION, A/SLMR No. 207)

Forester is a professional employee. (Francis Marion and 

Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 227; Bureau 

of Land Mgt. Dstrct. Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 

276)

Foresters—Forest Work Leaders, classified as exceptedindefinite or excepted-conditional, found eligible to vote in 

election where it is shown that they share common supervision and common terms and conditions of employment 

with regular full-time employees, and have a reasonable expectation of employment from season to season. (Mark 

Twain National Forest, Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR No. 303)

General Schedule

Unit Appropriate

Claimed unit of all GS employees appropriate including 

those GS employees placed under separate command structure through a recent reorganization. (HQ., Army Training 

Cntr, and Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., A/SLMR No. 328)

Residual, Activity-wide unit of professional and nonprofessional GS employees found appropriate. (DSA, Tracy, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 386)

Unit Not Appropriate

Unit limited to all nonsupervisory WB employees of one 

Section of Activity’s division is appropriate rather than 

Division-wide or Branch-wide unit including GS as well as 

WB employees because employees in petitioned for Section: 

(1) are only WB employees in Division; (2) have specialized 

training and experience and are licensed, specifically, to work 

on designated parts and sections of aircraft; (3) have no 

interchange with other Division employees; and, (4) have 

separate and distinct organization, supervision, and work 

shops. Neither of the two proposed units, according to Activity, would have impaired efficiency of operations. (FAA, 

NAFEC, Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 15)

29
20 20 00

Overall unit of all GS and WB employees of Activity located in U.S. Custom House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

found appropriate and narrow unit of all nonsupervisory 

GS employees located in division inappropriate. (Army Engr. 

Dstrct., Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 90)

Unit limited to nonprofessional GS employees- at one 

Office of Activity’s several Offices and Directorates not appropriate. (Naval Training Device Center, Orlando, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 140)

Unit of GS employees limited to Headquarters and Installation Support Activity (HISA) and to Arsenal, not appropriate. (Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J., A/SLMR No. 203)

General Schedule and Wage Board

Unit Appropriate

Unit of GS and WB employees excluding NAF employees, 

held appropriate. (Defense General Supply Cntr., Richmond, 

Va., A/SLMR No. 11)

Comprehensive unit of all WB and GS technicians in 

Minnesota Army National Guard appropriate, and narrower 

unit of all WB technicians on State-wide basis including certain GS technicians at one of 66 installations in State not 

appropriate. (Minn. Army Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 14)

Two separate State-wide units of all WB and GS employees of (1) Air and (2) Army National Guard Technicians, as 

sought, excluding separately represented Army Aviation facility employees, held appropriate. (Fla. Army Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 37)

Of two proposed units, State-wide unit of all nonsupervisory GS and WB technicians in Air National Guard found 

appropriate, and single-installation unit of such technicians 

held inappropriate. (Ohio Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 44)

Activity-wide unit WB and GS unit held appropriate, and 

unit limited to WB inappropriate. (Army, Military Ocean 

Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., A/SLMR No. 77)

Overall unit of all GS and WB employees of Activity 

located in U.S. Custom House, Philadelphia, found appropriate and narrow unit of all nonsupervisory GS employees 

located in one division inappropriate. (Army Engr. Dstrct., 

Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 90)

Activity-wide unit of GS and WB employees held appropriate. (Interior, Bureau of Land Mgt., Riverside District and 

Land Office, Cal., A/SLMR No. 170)

Unit of all GS and WB employees limited to Headquarters 

Office but excluding field employees is appropriate. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 185)

State-wide unit of all WB and GS Air National Guard 

technicians is appropriate, rather than combined unit of 

Army and Air National Guard technicians. (Pa. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 254)

Existing unit of all GS and WB employees of Activity 

with duty station at its headquarters found appropriate. A/S 

rejected Activity contention that only Regionwide unit was 

appropriate. A/S also rejected Intervenor’s contention that 

petitioned for unit and another unit of the Activity, both 

represented exclusively by Intervenor, had merged into single 

unit. (DSA, DCASR, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 271)

Physical Science Technicians may remain in WB unit despite reclassification as GS employees. (Charleston Naval 

Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 302)

Unit combining Activity’s GS and WG employees duty 

stationed at two work locations found appropriate. (VA Hospital, East Orange, N.J., A/SLMR No. 311)

Unit of all GS and WB employees of the Bureau of Mines 

in the Denver Area found appropriate. (Bureau of Mines, 

Denver, Colo., A/SLMR No. 312)

Unit of all WB and GS employees of the Army Aviation 

Support Facility located at Richard E. Byrd International 

Airport, Sandstop, Virginia, is appropriate. (Va. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 345)

Unit Not Appropriate

Unit combining small group of GS technicians at one installation with WB employees throughout State inappropriate 

because, among other factors, excluded GS employees at 

other installations in State perform similar work to those 

included in proposed unit. (Minn. Army Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 14)

Of two proposed units, State-wide unit of all nonsupervisory GS and WB technicians in Air National Guard found 

appropriate, and single-installation unit of such technicians 

held inappropriate. (Ohio N atl. Guard, A/SLMR No. 44)

Unit of certain nonprofessional nonsupervisory GS and 

WB technicians at only some of the Alabama Air National 

Guard facilities found inappropriate. (Ala. Air Natl. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 67)

Unit limited to WB and GS employees in two field locations of Activity having numerous such locations held inappropriate. (GSA, Region 7, Tex., A/SLMR No. 176)

Activity-wide unit of GS and WB employees found inappropriate where claimed unit would exclude employees 

who share a clear and identifiable community of interest 

with employees in the unit sought. (Mark Twain National 

Forest, Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR No. 303)

Unit of all GS and WB employees of one project office 

and all WB employees of another office following a reorganization involving a merger of the two offices found inappropriate where the parties stipulated that the WB employees of each office constituted separate and distinct units and 

the reorganization did not substantially or materially change 

the scope or character of the units involved. (Bureau of 

Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, A/SLMR No. 318)

General Supply Specialist is not a supervisor. (FAA, SW 

Reg. Airway Facilities Sector, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR 

No. 342)

Guards

(See also: 10 32 00, “Qualifications to Represent Specified 

Categories of Employees”).

Air Technician assigned guard duty once every 60-70 days 

are not “guards” within the meaning of EO. (Calif. Air 

Natl. Guard, HQ, 146th, Van Nuys, Calif., A/SLMR No. 

147)

Civilian Technicians of Augmented Security Police Force

who only occasionally and sporadically perform certain 

limited security functions, are not guards within meaning 

of EO. (Calif Air N atl Guard, HQ, 163rd Fighter Group 

Ontario, Calif., A/SLMR No. 252)

30
20 20 00

Criminal Investigator is not guard within meaning of EO. 

(Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, S.C., 

A/SLMR No. 227)

Deputy United States Marshals are law enforcement officers, rather than “guards” as defined in EO. (U.S. Marshal’s 

Office, Northern District of 111., A/SLMR No. 197; U.S. 

Marshal’s Office, Northern District of Ga., A/SLMR No. 

198)

Firefighters, assigned incidental security functions in addition to fire fighting are not “guards” within meaning of 

EO. (Air Force, AFRES, Youngstown Municipal Airport, 

A/SLMR No. 12)

Firefighters are not guards where their primary job function is to respond to fires and threats of fires, and any guard 

functions they perform are incidental to their firefighting 

functions. (GSA, Region 2, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 

220)

GS-3 Guards are “guards” within meaning of EO. (U.S. 

Mint, Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 45)

Guided Missile Mechanical Equipment Repairers, also 

called Launcher Crewmen, WB-6 and WB-7, who perform 

armed guard duty on a regular recurring basis for substantial periods of time, are guards within meaning of Section 

2(d) of EO. (Illinois Army Nat’l. Guard 1st Battalion, 

202nd Air Defense Artillery, Arlington Hts., 111., A/SLMR 

No. 370)

Messenger is guard. (Army and AF Exchange Service, 

Elmendorf AFB and Ft. Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska, 

A/SLMR No. 208)

Park Police. Unit limited to United States park police 

and excluding classifications of guards, rangers and technicians is appropriate. (U.S. Park Police, Nat’l. Capital 

Parks, A/SLMR No. 145)

Security Inspector is guard. (Army and AF Exchange 

Service, Elmendorf AFB and Ft. Richardson, Anchorage, 

Alaska, A/SLMR No. 208)

Sergeant of Guards. National Guard employees who perform Sergeant of Guard duties are guards within meaning 

of EO. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Watchmen are guards. (Army and AF Exchange Service, 

Elmendorf AFB and Ft. Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska, 

A/SLMR No. 208)

Guidance Counselors in GS-1710 series are professional 

employees. (Interior, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Cntr., Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 204)

Historian is not professional employee where prerequisite 

for job does not include prolonged course of specialized 

intellectual instruction but rather general degree or three 

years of practical experience. (Army Safeguard Logistics 

Command and Army Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Intermittent Employees included in unit where they have 

reasonable expectancy of continued employment. (NAF 

Activity, Ft. Benning, Ga., A/SLMR No. 188; Air Force, 

NAF Activities, Tyndall AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 226)

“Career Intermittent” employees included in unit where 

they work under similar conditions of employment as other 

employees and have reasonable expectancy of continued 

employment. (St. Louis Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Employees designated as “intermittent” by Activity included in unit where, aside from fact that they are restricted 

to no more than 700 hours employment in any one year, 

they have reasonable expectancy of continued employment 

from year to year, and share, with regular full-time employees, common working conditions. (Customs Bureau, Region

IV, A/SLMR No. 152; AF Defense Language Institute, 

Lackland AFB, Texas, A/SLMR No. 322)

Internal Revenue Agent is professional employee. (IRS, 

Birmingham District, Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Labor Relations Administration Personnel, Sec. 3(d) of

EO. (See also 10 32 00, “Qualifications to Represent Specified Categories of Employees”).

Personnel Management Specialists, Personnel Staffing

Specialists, Labor Relations Officer and Director, Personnel

Management Training Institute may not be represented by 

a labor organization which represents other groups of 

employees under EO. (St. Louis Region, CSC, A/SLMR 

No. 162)

Leave Without Pay Status. Employee on leave without pay 

status held eligible for inclusion in unit. (GSA, Memphis, 

Tenn., A/SLMR No. 100)

Librarian is not professional employee where work does 

not require consistent exercise of discretion and judgment, 

and is not predominantly intellectual and varied in character, in that incumbent follows standard system for cataloguing and submits difficult questions to review panel. 

(Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Army Safeguard 

Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Licensed Practical Nurses. Separate unit found inappropriate as LPN’s have a community of interest with other 

nonprofessional employees. (VA Hospital, Tampa, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 330)

Maintenance and Manual Labor

Custodial and Maintenance Employees in combined unit 

appropriate. (GSA, PBS, San Francisco, A/SLMR No. 39)

Management Interns included in unit where they work 

under similar conditions of employment as other employees. 

(St. Louis Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Management Official

(See also: 05 04 00, “Definitions”).

Administrative Officer, GS-13, is management official. 

(HEW, Regional Office VI, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 

266)

Administrative Officer is not management official. (HEW, 

Regional Office VI, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 266)

Administrative Officer, GS-13, is management official. 

(Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 185)

Administrative Specialist (Battalion Level) is management 

official. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Administrative Supply Technician is not a management 

official. (VA Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Aircraft Maintenance Analysis Technician, GS-9, is not 

management official. (926th Tactical Airlift Gp., Naval Air 

Sta., Belle Chasse, La., A/SLMR No. 221)

31
20 20 00

Area Specialists and Planning and Procedure Specialists

are not management officials in that they are experts who 

carry out policy within defined guidelines but do not make 

or influence effectively the making of Activity policy. They 

are included in unit with Air Traffic Control Specialists 

(Controllers) because skills employed are derived from 

experience as Controllers and there is community of interest. 

(FAA, A/SLMR No. 173)

Area Utilization Officer, ineligible for inclusion in unit 

based on stipulation of parties. (GSA, Memphis, Tenn 

A/SLMR No. 100)

Assistant Director of Advertising and Promotion, is man 

agement official. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Assistant Director of Marketing is management officia 

(Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C 

A/SLMR No. 185)

Assistant National D irector is management officia 

(Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C 

A/SLMR No. 185)

Attorneys of Office of Regional Counsel are not manage 

ment officials. (Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, West 

ern Region, A/SLMR No. 161)

Bowling Alley Assistant Manager and Bowling Alley

Night Manager are not management officials. (Air Force, 

NAP Activities, Tyndall AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 226)

Central Storeroom Manager is not management official. 

(Air Force, NAF Activities, Tyndall AFB, Fla., A/SLMR 

No. 226)

Chief Radar Mechanic is not management official. (Va. 

Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Clinical Coordinator at hospital, although not supervisor, 

is “management official” within meaning of EO. (VA Hospital, Augusta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 3)

Consumer Affairs Officers, GS-11, are not management 

officials. (HEW, FDA, Newark, N.J., A/SLMR No. 361)

Consumer Safety Officers, GS-12 and GS-13, are not 

management officials, although they are supervisors. (HEW, 

FDA, Newark, N.J., A/SLMR No. 361)

Coordinator of Banking and Volunteer Activities is management official. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Deputy National Director is management official. 

(Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 185)

Director of Advertising and Promotion is management 

official. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Director of Marketing is management official. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

185)

Director of Program Planning is management official. 

(Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 185)

Director of Public Affairs is management official. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 185)

District Offices and Professional Groups Branch Specialists are not management officials. (HEW, Regional Office 

VI, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 266)

Electronics Materiel Chief (Battalion Level) and Fire

Control Mechanic (Battalion Level) are not management 

officials. (Va. Nat’l Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Equal Opportunity Specialist is not management official. 

(Portland, Ore., Area Office, HUD, A/SLMR No. I l l )

Evaluation and Proficiency Specialists are managerial 

employees. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 122)

Fire Control Mechanic (Battery Level) is not management 

official. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

First Sergeant is management official. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 69)

Flight Engineer (Instructor), GS-9, is not management 

official where his role in implementation of Flight Engineer 

Training Program is that of expert rendering resource material. (926th Tactical Airlift Gp., Naval Air Sta., Belle 

Chasse, La., A/SLMR No. 221)

Flow Controllers who regulate flow of air traffic, while 

highly skilled, are not managerial employees. (FAA, 

A/SLMR No. 173)

Labor Relations Specialist is management official. (Portland, Ore., Area Office, HUD, A/SLMR No. 153)

Management Analysts are management officials, (VA, 

Regional Office, Newark, N.J., A/SLMR No. 38)

Management Analysts are not management officials where 

their role is that of expert or professional rendering resource 

information and recommendations with respect to policy in 

question, but does not extend to point of active participation in ultimate determination as to what policy, in fact, 

will be. (Nat’l. Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin., Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 193; DSA, Tracy, Calif., A/SLMR No. 386)

Market Analysis Officer is management official. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

185)

Military Liaison and Security Specialists are not management officials but rather are experts who primarily develop 

technical procedures and programs. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 

173)

National Director is management official. (Treasury, U.S. 

Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Operations Officers are management officials. (Customs, 

Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Port Directors at "One-Man” Ports are not management 

officials. (Customs, Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 

210)

Program Analysts and Program Analysis Officers are not 

management officials. (Nat’l. Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin., 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 193; DSA, Tracy, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 386)

Program Evaluation Analyst is management official. 

(HEW, Regional Office VI, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 266)

Project Directors are not management officials. (Defense 

Mapping Agency, Topographic Cntr., West Warwick, R.I., 

A/SLMR No. 310)

32
20 20 00

Public Affairs Officer is management official. (HEW, Regional Office VI, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 266)

Public Information Officer is management official. (926th 

Tactical Airlift Gp., Naval Air Sta., Belle Chasse, La. 

A/SLMR No. 221)

Security Officer is Management official. (Lone Star Army 

Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex., A/SLMR No. 187)

Social Insurance Specialist is not management official. 

(HEW, Regional Office VI. Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 266)

Special Assistant to National Director is management official. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 185)

Special Projects Representative is management official. 

(Agriculture, Farmers Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A / 

SLMR No. 205)

Supply Specialist is not management official. (Va. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Systems Analyst is not management official. (DSA, Tracy, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 386)

Technicians-in-Depth are not management officials. (FAA, 

Airway Facilities Sector, Ft. Worth, Tex., A/SLMR No. 

230)

Technician-in-Depth is not management official. (FAA, 

ARTCC, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 277)

Management Representative. Employee of Employee Appeals Board of the Navy is management representative. 

(Navy, Office of the Sec’y., Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 393)

Nonappropriated Fund Employees (NAF)

Unit Appropriate

Single-installation unit sought in petition is appropriate, 

and three-installation unit inappropriate, because of lack of 

employee interchange and substantial distance between installations, bargaining history on single-installation basis, 

and fact that no labor organization sought to represent employees on comprehensive basis. (AFES, MacDill AFB Consolidated Exchange, Fla., A/SLMR No. 29)

Unit of all nonsupervisory warehouse employees found 

appropriate where: (1) such employees are separated physically from rest of Activity’s employees; (2) their job functions, which for the most part, involve manual labor, are 

dissimilar from those of other Activity employees whose 

duties include accounting, data processing, inventory management and personnel administration; (3) they work under 

separate supervision and have different work shifts from 

other Activity employees with whom they have negligible 

interchange; and, (4) such unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. (New England Exchange Region, A/SLMR No. 54)

Activity-wide unit of employees of Exchange Service 

appropriate where employees: (a) engaged in similar duties 

on Activity-wide basis; (b) are subject to same general 

working conditions, salary schedule and benefits; (c) have 

similar supervision, hours of work, grievance procedures 

and leave policies; and (d) vacancies and promotions are 

posted Activity-wide. (Army and AF Exchange, Fort 

Huachuca, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 167)

Unit of Nonappropriated Fund employees in “Category 

A” (performing primarily administrative or clerical work)

and in “Category B” (performing primarily manual labor) is 

appropriate but unit limited to “Category B” employees is 

not appropriate. (NAF Activity, Ft. Benning, Ga., A/SLMR 

No. 188)

Unit of all employees of Nonappropriated Fund (NAF) 

Activity is appropriate, where, among other factors, claimed 

unit encompasses all NAF Activities at base. (Air Force, 

NAF Activities, Tyndall AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 226)

Unit of employees of Army and Air Force Exchange 

Service at Fort Bliss Exchange and its satellite exchanges 

is appropriate. (AAFES, Fort Bliss Post Exchange, El Paso, 

Texas, A/SLMR No. 236)

Employee excepted from the competitive service by 

statute will be included in a unit with competitive service 

(General Service and Wage Grade) employees where they 

share a clear and identifiable community of interest. (Nat’l. 

Science Foundation, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 316)

Regular, part-time NAF employees included in unit of 

all nonsupervisory regular full-time, temporary part-time 

intermittent and off-duty military employees. (Air Force, 

Fort Snelling Officers Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR No. 

327)

Unit Not Appropriate

Single-installation unit sought in petition is appropriate, 

and three-installation unit inappropriate because of lack of 

employee interchange and substantial distance between 

installations, bargaining history on single-installation basis, 

and fact that no labor organization sought to represent employees on comprehensive basis. (AFES, MacDill AFB 

Consolidated Exchange, Fla., A/SLMR No. 29)

Unit of custodial employees employed at two Activities 

is not appropriate because employees included do not share 

clear and identifiable community of interest. (Army Special 

Services, Ft. Benning, Ga., A/SLMR No. 36)

Unit of employees employed in bowling alleys, snack bars 

and boat shop of Central Post Fund is not appropriate because: (1) it does not cover all Central Post Fund employees 

performing similar functions; (2) it includes employees performing unrelated job functions; and, (3) it does not reflect 

clear and identifiable community of interest and its establishment would not promote effective dealings and efficiency 

of operations. (Army Special Services, Ft. Benning, Ga., 

A/SLMR No. 36)

Separate units of (1) all food service employees and (2) 

food service employees, maintenance men and janitors employed at Activity’s Oakland Army Base each found inappropriate, since employees sought do not possess clear and 

identifiable community of interest separate and apart from 

other employees of Activity. (Bay Area Exchange, A/SLMR 

No. 79)

Unit limited to employees in only one of ten Nonappropriated Fund (NAF) activities at Activity’s Air Base 

not appropriate, despite immediate separate supervision. 

(NAF Activities, Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., A/SLMR 

No. 124)

Unit limited to employees at one location of Officer’s 

Open Mess, which is one of six Nonappropriated Fund 

(NAF) operations of Activity held not appropriate. (HQ. & 

Installation Support Activity (AVSCOM), St. Louis, Mo., 

A/SLMR No. 165)

33
20 20 00

Unit of Nonappropriated Fund (NAF) employees in 

“Category A” (performing primarily administrative or 

clerical work) and in “Category B” performing primarily 

manual labor) is appropriate but unit limited to “Category 

B” employees is not appropriate. (NAF Activity, Ft. Benning, Ga., A/SLMR No. 188)

Petition for clarification of unit seeking to clarify an 

existing exclusively recognized bargaining unit by adding 

approximately 46 unrepresented employees of the former 

Kirtland Air Force Base Exchange to 116 employees of 

the former Sandia Base Exchange unit who are currently 

represented by an exclusive representative is denied. Notwithstanding reorganization, there remain viable and identifiable groups of employees performing the former Sandia 

Base Exchange and Kirtland Air Force Base Exchange functions. (Army & AF Exchange Service, Kirtland AFB Exchange, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 371)

National Guard

Unit Appropriate

Of two proposed units. State-wide unit of all nonsupervisory GS and WB technicians in Air National Guard found 

appropriate, and single-installation unit of such technicians 

held inappropriate. (Ohio Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 44)

A/S found two separate State-wide units of Army and 

Air National Guard technicians appropriate, where Petitioners had sought: (1) State-wide unit of all Army National 

Guard technicians; and, (2) State-wide unit of all Army and 

Air National Guard technicians. (Nat’l. Guard Bureau, Adj. 

Gen., Ga., A/SLMR No. 74)

State-wide unit -of all WB and GS Air National Guard 

technicians is appropriate, rather than combined unit of 

Army and Air National Guard technicians. (Pa. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 254)

Unit Not Appropriate

Unit combining small group of GS technicians at one 

installation with WB employees throughout State inappropriate because, among other factors, excluded GS employees 

at other installations in State perform similar work to those 

included in proposed unit. (Minn. Army Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 14)

Of two proposed units. State-wide unit of all nonsupervisory GS and WB technicians in Air National Guard found 

appropriate, and single-installation unit of such technicians 

held inappropriate. (Ohio Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 44)

Unit of GS Army Reserve technicians limited to 4 of 13 

Army Reserve Commands serviced by same Civilian Personnel Office not appropriate. (Army, HQ, Camp McCoy, 

Wise., St. Louis Metro. Area, A/SLMR No. 166)

“NTE” Employees. “N T E ’ (Not-to-Exceed) Language

Instructors included in unit of all nonsupervisory Language 

Instructors as result of clarification of unit proceeding. (Defense Language Institute, East Coast Branch, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 213)

Nurses

Civilian Registered Nurses, (staff nurses), acting for 

clinical head nurses, not supervisors. (Army Medical Dept. 

Activity, Fort Huachuca, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 163)

Head Nurses are supervisors. (VA Hospital, Augusta, 

Ga., A/SLMR No. 3; VA Hospital, Buffalo, N.Y., A/SLMR 

No. 96)

Licensed Vocational Nurses. Separate unit of licensed 

vocational nurses (LVN’s) held inappropriate. (Public Health 

Service Hospital, HEW, San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR 

No. 82)

Nurse Anesthetists are excluded from unit of staff nurses 

because of lack of community of interest. (VA Hospital, 

Augusta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 3; VA Hospital, Tampa, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 330)

Nurse Coordinators (Head Nurses) are supervisors. (VA 

Hospital, Lexington, Ky., A/SLMR No. 22)

Nurse Clinicians in Operating Room and Outpatient

Facility, who perform the same functions as nurse coordinators in hospital units, are “supervisors,” but other nurse 

clinicians are included in unit of staff nurses. (VA Hospital, 

Lexington, Ky., A/SLMR No. 22)

Occupational Health Nurses are professional employees. 

(GSA, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 100; St. Louis Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Registered Nurses. Unit of professional and nonprofessional employees, .including registered nurses, appropriate. 

(VA Hospital, Lexington, Ky., A/SLMR No. 22; VA Cntr., 

Togus, Maine, A/SLMR No. 84; VA Cntr., Mountain Home, 

Tenn., A/SLMR No. 89; HEW, Public Health Service Hospital, Boston-Brighton, Mass., A/SLMR No. 267)

Supervisory Clinical Nurses are supervisors. (Soldiers’ 

Home, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 13)

Off-Duty Military Employees

(See also: 20 20 00, “Nonappropriated Fund Employees”)

Exclusion from bargaining unit of off-duty military personnel as a class is unwarranted. (Navy Exchange, Mayport, 

Fla., A/SLMR No. 24; See also A/SLMR Nos. 25, 26, 27, 

28, 32, 33, 43, 54, and 79)

Off-duty military employees who work sufficient number 

of hours to be classified as either regular full-time or regular 

part-time may not be excluded from unit. (Army and AF 

Exchange, Fort Huachuca, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 167; Army 

and Air Force Exchange Service, Vandenberg AFB, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 218; Army & AF Exchange Service, NW Area 

Exchange, Fort Lewis, Wash., A/SLMR No. 338)

No determination made on parties’ agreement to exclude 

military personnel where record fails to disclose whether 

these employees come within category of off-duty military 

employees, whose exclusion would be unwarranted if based 

solely on military status. (AAFES, MacDill AFB Consolidated Exchange, Fla., A/SLMR No. 29)

Off-duty military employees included in unit where they 

share common supervision, working conditions and, in many 

instances, common job duties with civilian employees. (Air 

Force, Fort Snelling Officers Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR 

No. 327)

On-Call Employees

“On-Call” employees excluded from unit where they fill 

in during temporary absences of regular employees and do 

not have reasonable expectancy of future employment. 

(Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Norton AFB, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 191; Army & AF Exchange Service, NW Area 

Exchange, Fort Lewis, Wash., A/SLMR No. 338)

34
20 20 00

“On-Call” employees excluded from unit. (Alaskan Exchange System, Base Exchange, A/SLMR No. 33; Army 

and AF Exchange, Fort Huachuca, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 167)

Operations Research Analysts are not professional employees where prerequisites for jobs do not include'prolonged 

course of specialized intellectual instruction but rather general degree supplemented by certain specific course. (Array 

Safeguard Logistics Command and Army Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Part-Time Employee. Part-time employees included in 

unit with regular full-time employees where both groups 

share similar working conditions. (Army and AF Exchange, 

White Sands (N.M.) Missile Range, A/SLMR No. 25)

Pharmacists. Unit of pharmacists at Veterans Administration Hospital is inappropriate. (VA Hospital, Buffalo, New 

York, A/SLMR No. 60)

Physicist is professional employee. (Army Safeguard 

Logistics Command and Army Safeguard Systems Command, 

Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Plumber. Plumbers, pipefitters and related classifications 

working in Activity’s Maintenance Division may constitute 

a separate appropriate unit or be included in more comprehensive residual, basewide unit of all nonsupervisory WB 

employees not covered currently by exclusive recognition. 

(Naval Air Station, Alameda, Cal., A/SLMR No. 6)

Probationary Employees included in petitioned for unit. 

(Navy Exchange, Mayport, Fla., A/SLMR No. 24)

Police (See Guards)

Professional Employees

(See also: 05 04 00, “Definitions”).

In absence of specific definition of “professional” employee in EO, to effectuate purposes of EO, A/S established 

that, for purpose of unit placement, a professional employee 

is:

(A) Any employee engaged in the performance of work; 

(1) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field 

of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and 

study in an institution of higher learning or a hospital, as 

distinguished from knowledge acquired by a general 

academic education, or from an apprenticeship, or from 

training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or 

physical processes; (2) requiring the consistent exercise of 

discretion and judgment in its performance; (3) which is 

predominately intellectual and varied in character (as 

opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical or physical work); and (4) which is of such a character that the 

output produced or the result accomplished cannot be 

standardized in relation to a given period of time; or

(B) Any employee who has completed the courses of 

specialized intellectual instruction and study described in 

clause (A) above and is performing related work under 

the direction or guidance of a professional person to 

qualify himself to become a professional employee as 

defined in clause (A) above. (Interior, Bureau of Land 

Mgmt., Riverside District and Land Office, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 170)

Unit Appropriate

Test of whether alleged “professional” and “nonprofessional” employees may be joined in same unit is whether

such employees share common conditions of employment 

despite differences in special educational qualifications, job 

functions, lack of interchange and different career opportunities. (Bureau of Land Mgmt., District Office, Lakeview, 

Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

Professional employees included in appropriate unit despite the fact that Petitioner only sought to represent nonprofessional employees, where Petitioner had historically 

represented both professional and certain nonprofessional 

employees of the Activity and had not clearly and unequivocally disclaimed interest in representing employees in the 

existing smaller unit at the Activity. (Small Business Admin., 

Miami District, Fla., A/SLMR No. 314)

Unit of all professional employees in one of the administrative divisions of an Activity in Washington, D.C., found 

appropriate. (Customs Service, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

354)

Unit of all professional engineers, physical scientists, 

mathematicians and statisticians, excluding all other professional employees, found appropriate because claimed unit 

constitutes a unique, functional and homogeneous grouping 

of employees. (McClellan AFB, Sacramento, Calif., A/SLMR 

No. 356)

Inclusion of professional employees in Activity-wide unit 

of all employees at National Forest found appropriate. 

(Idaho Panhandle National Forests, A/SLMR No. 394)

Unit Not Appropriate

Department-wide unit of all professional employees found 

not appropriate where claimed employees shared community 

of interest with professional employees of another department within the Activity. (Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SMLR No. 344)

Professional and Nonprofessional Employees

Unit Appropriate

Activity-wide unit of professional and nonprofessional 

employees at Veterans Administration Hospital is appropriate, with self-determination election for professionals directed. (VA Hospital, Lexington, Ky., A/SLMR No. 22),

Overall unit of all professional and nonprofessional employees located throughout Western Region of Activity held 

appropriate. (IRS, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 57)

Overall unit of professional and nonprofessional employees 

in all four divisions of Activity held appropriate, if professionals select such inclusion, and narrow unit of nonsupervisory GS employees in one of four divisions inappropriate. 

(HEW, Data Mgt. Cntr., A/SLMR No. 72

Unit of all GS professional and nonprofessional employees, 

including all Bureau of Motor Car Safety (BMCS) employees, 

limited to Regional Office, held appropriate, and unit of all 

BMCS employees on nationwide basis, inappropriate. (DOT, 

Fed. Highway Adm., and Bureau of Motor Car Safety, 

A/SLMR No. 98)

Activity-wide unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees of the Forest Supervisor’s Office and the 10 Ranger Districts in the National Forests of North Carolina may, 

if the professionals so vote, constitute an appropriate unit, 

and broader unit, including such employees and professional 

and nonprofessional employees of one of two Civilian Conservation Centers located in the National Forests of North

35
20 20 00

Carolina, held inappropriate. (Agriculture, Schenck Civilian 

Conservation Cntr., N.C., A/SLMR No. 116)

Regionwide unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees of Office of Regional Counsel, Western Region, 

held to be appropriate. (Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 161)

District-wide unit of all nonsupervisory professional and 

nonprofessional employees, excluding Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Division employees who had been excluded 

pursuant to Sec. 3(b)(3) of EO, found appropriate. (IRS, 

Birmingham Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Regionwide unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees found appropriate. (Customs, Region IX, Chicago,

111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Unit of all professional and nonprofessional employees of 

Forest Supervisor’s Office and Ranger Districts in National 

Forests of South Carolina appropriate. (Francis Marion and 

Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 227)

Unit of professional and nonprofessional employees at 

headquarters of Regions, is appropriate. (HEW, Regional 

Office VI, Dallas, Tex., A/SIMR No. 266)

Activity-wide unit of all professionals and nonprofessionals 

at Veterans Administration Hospital found appropriate pending self-determination election of professionals, pursuant to 

Sec. 10(b)(4) of EO. (VA Hospital, Tampa, Fla., A/SLMR 

No. 330)

Regionwide unit of all nonsupervisory professional and 

nonprofessional employees of the National Weather Service’s 

Central Region is appropriate. (Nat’l. Weather Service, Central Region, A/SLMR No.331)

Unit of professional and nonprofessional employees of 

Newark, New Jersey District, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, is appropriate. (HEW, FDA, Newark, N.J., A/SLMR No. 361)

Residual, Activity-wide unit of professional and nonprofessional GS employees found appropriate. (DSA, Tracy, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 386)

Unit Not Appropriate

Unit of all nonsupervisory professional and nonprofessional employees of Activity’s Los Angeles Regional Appellate Branch Office excluding all other Western Region 

Appellate employees held inappropriate. (IRS, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 57)

Unit of all Activity’s professional and nonprofessional employees assigned to the Office of Management Systems, Headquarters, Federal Aviation Administration not appropriate. 

(FAA, Office of Mgt. Systems, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No.

399)

Professional Employees, Occupations

Accountant is professional employee. (Lone Star Army 

Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex., A/SLMR No. 187; 

Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Army Safeguard 

Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Appraisers are not professional employees. (Interior, Bureau of Land Mgt., Riverside District and Land Office, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 170)

Architect is professional employee. (Agriculture, Farmers 

Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 205)

Assistant County Supervisors are not professional employees. (Agriculture, Farmers Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., 

A/SLMR No. 205)

Attorney (Estate and Gift Tax) is professional employee. 

(IRS, Birmingham Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Attorney is professional employee. (Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Army Safeguard Systems Command, 

Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Auditor is professional employee. (Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Army Safeguard Systems Command, 

Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Biologist, Wildlife is professional employee. (Bureau of 

Land Mgt., Dstrct. Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 

276)

Bond Sales Promotional Specialists, GS-011, (in job classifications of: public affairs trainee, industrial payroll savings 

committee assistant, special projects assistant, and promotion 

assistant) not professional employees. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Conservationist, Range, is professional employee. (Bureau 

of Land Mgt., Dstrct. Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 

276)

Contract Assistant is not professional employee. (Francis 

Marion and Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 

I ll )

Design Specialist is professional employee. (Army and AF 

Exchange Service, Elmendorf AFB, and Ft. Richardson, 

Anchorage, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 208)

Education and Vocational Training Specialist is professional employee. (Army Safeguard Logistics Command and 

Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR 

No. 224)

Engineer is professional employee. (Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex., A/SLMR No. 187; Army 

Safeguard Logistics Command and Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Engineer, Civil is professional employee. (Agriculture, 

Farmers Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 205)

Engineer, Civil is professional employee. (Bureau of Land 

Mgt., Dstrct. Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 276)

Farm Specialist is professional employee. (Agriculture, 

Farmers Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 205)

Forester is professional employee. (Francis Marion and 

Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 227)

Forester is professional employee. (Bureau of Land Mgt., 

Dstrct. Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 276)

Guidance Counselors in GS-1710 series are professional 

employees. (Interior, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Cntr., Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 204)

Historian is not professional employee. (Army Safeguard 

Logistics Command and Safeguard Systems Command, 

Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Internal Revenue Agent is professional employee. (IRS, 

Birmingham Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Librarian is not professional employee. (Army Safeguard 

Logistics Command and Safeguard Systems Command, 

Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

36
20 20 00

Mining Engineers are professional employees. (Interior, 

Bureau of Land Mgt., Riverside District and Land Office, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 170)

Operations Research Analysts are not professional employees. (Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Safeguard 

Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Outdoor Recreation Planners are not professional employees. (Interior, Bureau of Land Mgt., Riverside District and 

Land Office., Cal, A/SLMR No. 170)

Physicist is professional employee. (Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Range Conservationists are not professional employees. 

(Interior, Bureau of Land Mgt., Riverside District and Land 

Office, Cal., A/SLMR No. 170)

Realty Specialists are not professional employees. (Interior, 

Bureau of Land Mgt., Riverside District and Land Office, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 170)

Realty Specialist is not professional employee. (Bureau of 

Land Mgt., District Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 

212)

Revenue Officer is professional employee. (IRS, Birmingham Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186; Army Safeguard Logistics Command and Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224; Francis Marion and Sumter 

National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 227)

Surveyor, Cadastral, is not professional employee. (Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 

227)

Tax Auditor is professional employee. (IRS, Birmingham 

Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Teachers in GS-1710 series are professional employees. 

(Interior, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation 

Cntr., Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 204)

Technical Advisor is professional employee. (Treasury, 

Office of Regional Counsel, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 

161)

A/S adopted parties’ stipulation that employees in certain 

classifications are professionals due to nonstandardized nature of work, educational requisites of position, exercise of 

independent judgment in work, and their classification by 

CSC. (2nd Coast Guard Dstrct., St. Louis, A/SLMR No. 93)

Wildlife Management Specialists are not professional employees. (Interior, Bureau of Land Mgt., Riverside District 

and Land Office, Cal., A/SLMR No. 170)

See also:

05 04 00 “Definitions”

15 28 00 “Remand” (A/SLMR No. 212)

20 04 04 “Community of Interest” (A/SLMR No. 212)

20 08 00 “Geographic Scope” (A/SLMR Nos. 22, 46, 52,

57, 60, 72, 83, 98, 99, 116, 141, 151, 153, 161, 162, 186,

210, 224, 227 243, 266 and 270)

20 16 04 “Severance” (A/SLMR Nos. 84 and 89)

20 16 16 “Residual Employees” (A/SLMR Nos. 260 and

262)

20 20 00 “Employee Categories and Classifications” 

(Specific Classifications, e.g., “Attorneys,” “Nurses,” 

“Teachers,” etc.)

25 04 04 “Voting Procedures, Professionals” (A/SLMR 

No. 224)

25 04 28 “Voting Procedures, Self-Determination” (A / 

SLMR No. 260)

25 12 04 “Challenge, Eligibility of Employees” (A/SLMR 

No. 120)

Purchase and Hire Employees. Inclusion of “purchase and 

hire” employees in unit found inappropriate where such 

employees do not have clear and identifiable community of 

interest with other employees. (VA Hospital, E. Orange, 

N.J., A/SLMR No. 92)

Quality Assurance Specialists in Operations Division of 

Quality Assurance Directorate constitute appropriate unit. 

(DSA, Boston-Quality Assurance, A/SLMR No. 97)

Realty Specialist is not professional employee where work 

does not require knowledge of advanced type in field of 

science or learning, but rather only general academic education, supplemented by six-month training course and on-job 

training, with no specific academic requirement for position. 

(Bureau of Land Mgt., District Office, Lakeview, Ore., 

A/SLMR No. 212)

Residual Employees

(See: 20 16 16, “Representation Unit Determinations, 

Scope, Residual Employees.”)

Revenue Officer is professional employee. (IRS, Birmingham Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Seasonal Employees (See also Temporary Employees)

Exclusion of seasonal employees as a group unwarranted. 

(A/SLMR Nos. 27, 77, 83, 86, 88, 98, 100, 107, 111, 116 

and 334)

Inclusion of regular seasonal employees in consolidated. 

Activity-wide unit of all employees at a national forest, 

found appropriate. (Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 

A/SLMR No. 394)

Secretary

(See: 20 20 00, “Confidential Employees”).

Student Employees

Students who work full-time during the summer and parttime during the school year as clericals under a special program arrangement between the Activity and a university, 

excluded from unit where, among other factors, there is no 

evidence of any likelihood of employment by the Activity 

upon completion of their present limited employment. 

(Portland, Ore. Area Office, HUD, A/SLMR No. I l l )

Student Aides who work full-time during summer months 

and part-time during the school year included in motor pool 

unit where, among other factors, they have reasonable 

expectancy to continue employment on this basis and may 

be converted to full-time status if budget permits. (GSA, 

Region 10, Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., 

A/SLMR No. 146)

37
20 20 00

Supervisors

(See also: 05 04 00, “Definitions”; 20 20 00, “Firefighters,” “Management Officials,” “Teachers,” and “Nurses”).

County Supervisors, whose job functions and responsibilities are supervisory in nature, are supervisors, despite fact 

that they have only one subordinate. (Agriculture, Farmers 

Home Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 205)

Aircraft Loadmaster (Instructor), GS-9, who exercises 

supervisory authority only over noncivilian, active-duty reservists, is supervisor. (926th Tactical Airlift Gp., Naval Air 

Sta., Belle Chasse, La., A/SLMR No. 221)

In determining supervisory status, it is immaterial whether 

supervisory authority involved is exercised over unit employees, non-unit employees, or over “persons” such as military personnel who are not “employees” within meaning of 

Sec. 2(b) of EO. (Army Base Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR 

No. 243)

Pursuant to FLRC Decision on Appeal and remand in 

United States Department of Agriculture, Northern Marketing and Nutrition Research Division, Peoria, Illinois,

A/SLMR No. 120, FLRC No. 72A-4, which held that 

supervisory status was intended to be determined on basis 

of authority of individual, not on precise number of subordinates, A/S reviewed the record in A/SLMR No. 121 

and found Personnel Equipment and Survival Technician, 

WG-12, was not supervisor but Personnel Technician, GS-6, 

was. Accordingly, A/S issued a supplemental Decision and 

Order Clarifying Unit to reflect these findings. (N.J. DOD, 

A/SLMR No. 269)

Account Technician is not supervisor. (GSA, Region 10, 

Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR 

No. 146)

Accounting Supervisor is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. 

Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Administrative Assistant, GS-9, is supervisor. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

185)

Administrative Officer is supervisor. (HEW, Regional 

Office VI, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 266)

Administrative Officer, GS-13, is supervisor. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

185)

Administrative Officers are not supervisors. (Customs, 

Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Agricultural Management Specialists {County Supervisors) are supervisors. (Farmers Home Adm., A/SLMR 

No. 50)

Aircraft Commander is supervisor. (FAA, Battle Creek, 

Mich., A/SLMR No. 313)

Aircraft Loadmaster {Instructor), GS-8, is not super-, 

visor, and is included in unit. (926th Tactical Airlift Gp., 

Naval Air Sta., Belle Chasse, La., A/SLMR No. 221)

Aircraft Maintenance Analysis Technician, GS-9, is not 

supervisor. (926th Tactical Airlift Gp., Naval Air Sta., 

Belle Chasse, La., A/SLMR No. 221)

Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-10, is not supervisor. 

(Pa. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

Area Specialists and Planning and Procedure Specialists,

whose duties include analyzing policy issuance for effect on 

operations and recommending modifications in certain air 

traffic procedures to insure conformity with national policy 

are not supervisors, in that they are experts who carry out 

policy within defined guidelines but do not make, or influence effectively making of, Activity policy. They are 

included in unit with Air Traffic Control Specialists (Controllers) because skills employed are derived from experience 

as Controllers and there is community of interest. (FAA, 

A/SLMR No. 173)

Area Utilization Officer, held ineligible based on stipulation of parties, without contradictory evidence, that he was 

either supervisor or a management official. (GSA, Memphis, 

Tenn., A/SLMR No. 100)

Assistant to Automotive Mechanic Leader is not supervisor. (GSA, Region 10, Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, 

Portland, Ore., A/SLMR No. 146)

Assistant Budget Officer is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. 

Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Assistant Director of Advertising and Promotion is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 185)

Assistant Director of Marketing is supervisor. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

185)

Assistant General Foreman is supervisor (Army Base 

Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR No. 243)

Assistant Manager of Officer^ Open Mess and Assistant

Manager of NCO Club are supervisors. (Pa. Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 376)

Assistant Market Analysis Officer is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 185)

Assistant National Director is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. 

Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Assistant Public Information Officer is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 185)

Attorneys. Non-titled Attorneys of Office of Regional 

Counsel are not supervisors where they do not effectively 

evaluate other employees nor perform any other supervisory functions of Sec. 2(c) of EO. (Treasury, Office of 

Regional Counsel Region, A/SLMR No. 161)

Automatic Flight Control System Supervisor, WL-10, is 

supervisor. (N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

Automotive Equipment Inspector, held to be non-supervisory based on parties’ post-election stipulation to that 

effect, without contradictory evidence. (GSA, Memphis, 

Tenn., A/SLMR No. 100)

Automotive Equipment Maintenance General Foreman

is supervisor. (Army Base Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR 

No. 243)

Automotive Mechanic Leader is supervisor. (GSA, Region 

10, Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR 

No. 146)

Boilermaker Leader, WL-10, is not a supervisor. (Naval 

Station, Adak, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 321)

38
20 20 00

Bowling Alley Assistant Manager and Bowling Alley

Night Manager are not supervisors where there is no evidence that they have been delegated authority to hire, fire, 

reprimand, suspend, rate, or promote; and they spend 

majority of time working at customer desk. (Air Force, 

NAF Activities, Tyndall AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 226)

Budget Officer is supervisor. . (Treasury, U.S. Savings 

Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Chef is supervisor. (Air Force, Fort Snelling Officers 

Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR No. 327)

Chief of Inventory Cycle Unit is supervisor. (Army Base 

Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR No. 243)

Chief of Officer Services is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. 

Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Chief Quartermasters are supervisors. (Nat’l. Ocean Survey, Pacific Marine Center and Atlantic Marine Center, 

A/SLMR No. 222)

Clerical Services Supervisor, is supervisor. (Portland, 

Ore., Area Office, HUD, A/SLMR No. I l l )

Coordinator of Banking and Volunteer Activities is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 185)

Corpsmen Supervisor and Corpsmen Assistant Supervisor

are supervisors. (Interior, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian 

Conservation Cntr., Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 204)

Data Processing Superintendent, GS-9, is not supervisor. 

(N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

Deputy National Director is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. 

Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Director of Advertising and Promotion is supervisor. 

(Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., No. 

185)

Director of Marketing is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bond Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Director of Program Planning is supervisor. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

185)

Director of Public Affairs is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. 

Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

District Conservationists are supervisors. (Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service, A/SLMR No. 48)

Editorial Assistant is not supervisor. (Customs, Region 

IX„ Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Electrician, Leader (Lineman) (WL-10) and Electrician,

Leader (Telephone) (WL-10), are not supervisors. (Naval 

Station, Adak, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 321)

Equal Opportunity Specialist is not a supervisor. (Portland, Ore., Area Office, HUD, A/SLMR No. I l l )

Evaluation and Proficiency Development Specialists are 

supervisors. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 122)

Firefighters. (See: 20 20 00, “Firefighters”).

Fire Control Section Leader is supervisor. (Va. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 69)

Fire Dispatcher who acts as supervisor during sevenmonth fire prevention season is excluded from unit during 

portion of year that he acts as supervisor. (Francis Marion 

and Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 227)

First Sergeant is supervisor. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR 

No. 69)

Flow Controllers who regulate flow of air traffic, while 

highly skilled, are not supervisory employees, and because 

of their community of interest with petitioned for Air Traffic Control Specialists, are included in unit. (FAA, A/SLMR 

No. 173)

Food Activities “Supervisor," Storeroom “Supervisor”

and “Supervisory Sales Clerk,” who perform routine repetitive duties, generally work alongside other employees, and 

exercise alleged supervisory functions only in absence of 

respective managers and only on intermittent and infrequent 

basis, are not supervisors. (Army and AF Exchange Service, Richards-Gebaur AFB, Mo., [Whiteman AFB Exchange, Knob Noster, Mo.], A/SLMR No. 219)

Group Leaders are not supervisors. (Interior, Weber 

Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Cntr., Ogden, Utah, 

A/SLMR No. 204)

Guidance Counselors are nonsupervisory and are included 

in unit of nonsupervisory, professional employees. (BIA, 

Navajo Area, N.M., A/SLMR No. 99)

Head Bartender is supervisor. (Air Force, Fort Snelling 

Officers Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR No. 327)

Hearing Examiners are supervisors. (SSA, Bureau of 

Hearings and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 142)

Heating Mechanical Equipment Foreman is supervisor. 

(Army Base Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR No. 243)

Hostess is supervisor. (Air Force, Fort Snelling Officers 

Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR No. 327)

Import Control Officers are supervisors. (Customs, Region 

IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Import Specialist Team Leaders are not supervisors. (Customs, Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Janitor Leader is not supervisor. (Air Force, NAF Activities, Tyndall AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 226)

Liaison Officer is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings 

Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Maintenance and Supply Manager is not supervisor 

where he exercises authority over only one employee. (Air 

Force, NAF Activities, Tyndall AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 

226)

Manager of Officers Open Mess and Manager of NCO

Club, are supervisors. (Air Force, Fort Snelling Officers 

Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR No. 327)

Marine Cargo Planner is supervisor. (Army Base Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR No. 243)

Market Analysis Officer is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. 

Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Medical Services Technician, GS-8, is a supervisor where 

he had independent and responsible authority over other 

employees. (N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

39
20 20 00

Military Liaison and Security Specialists are experts who 

primarily develop technical procedures and programs but 

are not supervisory employees. Based on their community 

of interest with petitioned for Air Traffic Control Specialists, they are included in unit. (FAA, A/SLMR No. 173)

Military Personnel Technician, GS-7, is not supervisor. 

(Pa. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

Miscellaneous Documents Examiner is not supervisor. 

(Customs, Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Motor Pool Manager is supervisor. (GSA, Region 10, 

Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR 

No. 146)

Museum Curator is supervisor. (Army Base Command, 

Okinawa, A/SLMR No. 243)

National Director is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings 

Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Night Managers of NCO Club are supervisors. (Air 

Force, Fort Snelling Officers Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR 

No. 27)

Non-Destructive Inspection Supervisor, GS-9, is supervisor. (N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

Offset Press Operator is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Operating Accountant is supervisor. (Air Force, Fort 

Snelling Officers Open Mess, Minn., A/SLMR No. 327)

Organizational Maintenance Shop Chief is supervisor. 

(N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

Parachute Packer and Repairman, WG-11, is not supervisor. (N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

Payroll Clerk, GS-6 is not supervisor. (Pa. Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 376)

Planning and Research Assistant is supervisor. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No.

185)

Printing Officer is supervisor. (Treasury, U.S. Savings 

Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Principal-Teacher is supervisor. (Interior, Weber Basin 

Job Corps Civilian Conservation Cntr., A/SLMR No. 204)

Progressman is supervisor. (Naval Ordnance Station, 

Louisville, Ky., A/SLMR No. 400)

Public Information Officer is not supervisor. (Customs, 

Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Quality Control Superintendent, GS-9, is supervisor. 

(N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

Quality Control Supervisor, GS-8, is not supervisor where 

he does not have any supervisory responsibilities, except on 

an intermittent and infrequent basis during the absence of 

his supervisor. (N.J. DOD, A/SLMR No. 121)

Seasonal Supervisor, who acts as supervisor four months 

per year and spends remaining eight months of year as 

rank-and-file employee, included in unit only during period 

he spends as rank-and-file employee, and is eligible to vote 

only if election is held during period that he is rank-and-file 

employee. (Bureau of Land Mgt., District Office, Lakeview, 

Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

“Shop Chiefs" are not supervisors. (926th Tactical Airlii 

Gp., Naval Air Sta., Belle Chasse, La., A/SLMR No. 221

Social Insurance Administrator is supervisor. (HEW 

Public Health Service Hospital, Boston-Brighton, Mass. 

A/SLMR No. 266)

Special Assistant to National Director is supervisor. (Trea 

sury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division, Wash., D.C., A/SLMF 

No. 185)

Supervisor Customs Aids are supervisors. (Customs 

Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Supervisory Accounting Technician is supervisor. (Armj 

Base Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR No. 243)

Supervisory Claims Inspectors are supervisors. (Customs^ 

Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

Supervisory Firefighter {Structural, GS-7 and GS-8), commonly referred to as “Station Captains” and “Senior Station 

Captains,” are supervisors. (Holloman AFB, Alamogordo, 

N.M., A/SLMR No. 235)

Supervisory Inventory Management Assistant is not supervisor. (Army Base Command, Okinawa, A/SLMR No. 243)

Supervisory Voucher Examiner is supervisor. (Treasury, 

U.S. Savings Bonds Division, D.C., A/SLMR No. 185)

Supply Specialist is not supervisor. (Va. Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 69)

Supply Technician, GS-7, is not supervisor. (Pa. Nat’l. 

Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

Surveying Technician is not supervisor where he works as 

part of team and there is no evidence that he exercises 

authority over team members other than of routine nature. 

(Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, A/SLMR 

No. 227)

Team Leaders not supervisors where relationship between 

leaders and team members is one of senior employee to 

junior employee. (Customs Bureau, Region IV, A/SLMR 

No. 152)

Technician-In-Depth is not supervisor. (FAA, ARTCC, 

Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 277)

Training Instructor (Social Skills) is not supervisor. 

(Interior, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation 

Cntr., Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 204)

Training Officers are not supervisors where they do not 

exercise any supervisory authority over other employees and 

the evidence does not establish that the performance appraisals they prepare are effective. (National Capital Airports, 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 405)

Transportation Operations Assistant (Motor), is not supervisor. (GSA, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 100)

Unit Supervisors in Janitorial and Grounds Branch are 

not supervisors. (Air Force, NAF Activities, Tyndall AFB, 

Fla., A/SLMR No. 226)

Warehouse Leader, WL-6, is not supervisor. (926th Tactical Airlift Gp., Naval Air Sta., Belle Chasse, La., A/SLMR 

No. 221)

Warehouseman Leader, WL-7, is not supervisor. (Pa. 

Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

40
20 20 00

Surveyor, Cadastral is not professional employee where 

position does not require knowledge of advanced type in 

field of science or learning or prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction or study. (Francis Marion 

and Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 227)

Tax Auditor is professional employee. (IRS, Birmingham Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Teachers

“Instructors” are neither management officials nor supervisors with respect to students to whom they give instructions. (FAA Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, Okla., 

A/SLMR No. 117)

Instructors at FAA Academy while not managerial or 

supervisory employees because they do not formulate policy 

and have no authority to effect tenure of students, nevertheless are excluded from nationwide unit of Air Traffic 

Control Specialists (Controllers) because instructors and 

Controllers do not have common duties or work locations. 

(FAA, A/SLMR No. 173)

Teachers included in Multi-school, Activity-wide unit 

with education specialists and guidance counselors. (BIA, 

Navajo Area, N.M., A/SLMR No. 99)

Teachers are not employees engaged in Federal personnel 

work within meaning of EO, where they are engaged solely 

in teaching and their exclusion from coverage of EO is 

unwarranted. (Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, N.H., A/SLMR 

No. 2)

Teachers in GS-1710 series are professional employees. 

(Interior, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation 

Cntr., Ogden, Utah., A/SLMR No. 204)

Substitute Teachers excluded from unit where they do 

not have reasonable expectation of permanent employment. 

(Army, U.S. Dependents’ Schools, European Area, A/SLMR 

No. 260)

Unit of all teachers appropriate where teachers’ duties, 

work areas, and supervision are common and distinct, and 

they do not interchange with any other employees and have 

not been part of established units for exclusive representation at Activity. (Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, N.H., 

A/SLMR No. 2)

See also:

20 08 00, “Geographic Scope”, (A/SLMR Nos. 99 and

110)

35 00 00, “Unfair Labor Practices: Agency,” (A/SLMR

No. 117)

20 16 16, “Residual Employees,” (A/SLMR No. 260)

25 04 08, “Voting Procedures, Self-Determination”,

(A/SLMR No. 260)

Technician-in-Depth is not supervisor. (FAA, ARTCC, 

Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 277)

Telephone Operators. Severance of telephone operators 

from existing Activity-wide unit of all OS employees denied, 

where evidence failed to establish that interests of telephone 

operators have not been represented adequately. VA Hospital, Hines, 111., A/SLMR No. 85)

Teletypists do not constitute a separate appropriate unit. 

(GSA, Atlanta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 109)

Temporary Employees

Temporary and temporary-part-time employees hired for 

a period not to exceed one year and seasonal employees are 

included in unit with regular full-time employees where both 

groups share similar working conditions.

Temporary full-time and temporary part-time employees 

hired for an expected period of 90 days or less and, generally, have no reasonable expectancy of future employment 

beyond that period are excluded from unit. (Alaskan Exchange System, Base Exchange, A/SLMR No. 33; St. Louis 

Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162; Army and AF Exchange, 

Fort Huachuca, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 167)

Seasonal or temporary employees, hired during summer 

months as firefighters, included in unit. (Bureau of Land 

Mgt., District Office, Lakeview, Ore., A/SLMR No. 212)

Employees classified as “temporary” or “seasonal” included in unit. (Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, S.C., A/SLMR No. 227)

Replacement (for regular employee on sick leave due to 

injury) excluded from unit. (Interior, Weber Basin Job Corps 

Civilian Conservation Cntr., Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 

204)

Temporary employees included in unit. (IRS, Birmingham 

Dstrct., Ala. A/SLMR No. 186; Agriculture, Farmers Home 

Adm., Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 205)

“Temporary” (Intermittent) employees included in unit. 

(Customs, Region IX, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 210)

“Temporary part-time employees” excluded from unit. 

(Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Norton AFB, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 191)

Employees classified as “seasonal” found to manifest a 

substantial and continuing interest in terms and conditions 

of employment along with regular full-time employees, and 

therefore included in the appropriate unit, where seasonal 

employees receive same supervision and perform duties substantially the same as regular full-time employees, and have 

a reasonable expectancy of employment season after season. 

(Mark Twain National Forest, Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR 

No. 303)

Temporary GS employees should be included in unit 

found appropriate. (HQ., Army Training Cntr., and Ft. 

Leonard Wood, Mo., A/SLMR No. 328)

Temporary employees excluded from unit where it was 

found that they do not have a reasonable expectancy of continued employment. (Army and AF Exchange, Fort Huachuca, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 167)

Tenant of Activity. Unit of all GS and WB employees excluding, among others, employees of tenant of Activity held 

appropriate because employees, therein share clear and identifiable community of interest since they have common supervision, working conditions, hours of work, grievance procedures and leave policies, and common mission. (Defense 

General Supply Cntr., Richmond, Va., A/SLMR No. 11)

Where evidence failed to establish that functions of the 

various tenants and the Activity were integrated and interdependent and where the record was silent as to whether 

there were work-related contacts between unit and tenant 

employees, the A/S determined that there was insufficient 

evidence upon which to make a finding as to whether the 

tenant activities’ employees should be included in the ap41
20 20 00

propriate unit. (Army-AF • Exchange Service, Capitol Exchange Region, Tacony Warehouse, Philadelphia, Pa., 

A/SLMR No. 392)

Term Employees

Term Deputy United States Marshals included in unit of 

career and career-conditional Deputy United States Marshals 

in District, because they share common mission, pay scale, 

job assignments, working conditions, and uniform personnel 

and labor relations policies and have reasonable expectancy 

of employment. (U.S. Marshal’s Office, Northern District of

111., A/SLMR No. 197; Marshal’s Office, Northern Dstrct. 

of Ga., A/SLMR No. 198)

Term Employees included in unit. (IRS, Birmingham 

Dstrct., Ala., A/SLMR No. 186)

Employees hired under a 4-year fixed term appointment 

are included in unit where they: (1) work side by side with 

other employees in unit; (2) have same rights, benefits and 

privileges as such employees; and (3) have substantial and 

continuing interest in terms and conditions of employment. 

(DSA, Defense Depot, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR no. 107)

Unfilled Categories and Classifications. A/S makes no 

findings with respect to eligibility of temporary employees, 

because no such employees were employed at time of hear 

ing. (Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No 

181; Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Norton AFB 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 191; Treasury, Division of Disburse 

ment, Birmingham, Ala., A/SLMR No. 217; Army and Air 

Force Exchange Service, Vandenberg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 218)

It would not effectuate purposes of EO to amend a certification (more appropriately, clarify unit) where job classifications sought to be added to unit exclusions are not, in 

fact, filled by employees. (Army and AF Exchange Service, 

Golden Gate Exchange Region, Norton AFB, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 190)

Vista Volunteers. Unit composed of Vista volunteers employed under amended Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 

was inappropriate since Vista volunteers are not employees 

within meaning of EO. (VISTA, A/SLMR No. 95)

“WAE” Employees

"WAE” (When Actually Employed) Language Instructors

excluded from unit of all nonsupervisbry Language Instructors as result of clarification of unit proceeding where they: 

(1) are employed sporadically and are hired only for contingencies; (2) are not assigned regular classes; (3) share no 

common benefits with other employees; and (4) generally, 

do not have reasonable expectation of future employment. 

(Defense Language Institute, East Coast Branch, Wash., 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 213)

“WAE” (When Actually Employed) employees included 

in unit where they: (1) work under similar personnel policies, 

terms, and conditions of employment as other employees; 

and, (2) have reasonable expectancy of continued employment. (St. Louis Region, CSC, A/SLMR No. 162)

Wage Board

Unit Appropriate

Unit limited to all nonsupervisory WB employees of one 

Section of Activity’s Division is appropriate rather than Division-wide or Branch-wide unit including GS as well as WB

employees because employees in petitioned for Section: (1) 

are only WB employees in Division; (2) have specialized 

training and experience and are licensed, specifically, to work 

on designated parts and sections of aircraft; (3) have no 

interchange with other Division employees; and (4) have 

separate and distinct organisation, supervision, and work 

shops. Neither of the two proposed units, according to Activity would have impaired efficiency of operations. (FAA, 

NAFEC, Atlantic City, N.L, A/SLMR No. 15)

Unit limited to one WB job series appropriate but single 

unit of three WB job series not appropriate. (Material Command, Red River Army Depot, A/SLMR No. 131)

Unit of all WB employees of Activity found appropriate, 

where, no labor organization has petitioned for more comprehensive unit; and. Activity has no objection to petitioned 

for unit, (Naval Weapons System, Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR 

No. 181)

Division-wide unit of WB employees in an existing recognized unit encompassed by appropriate Regionwide petition 

granted a self-determination election. (GSA, Region 2, New 

York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

Unit Not Appropriate

Activity-wide unit of WB an d ' GS employees held appropriate, and unit limited to WB inappropriate. (Army 

Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., A/SLMR No. 77)

Combined unit of all WB and GS technicians held appropriate, and unit limited to WB technicians inappropriate, 

where WB and GS technicians: (1) have similar skills and 

working conditions and common supervision at decisionmaking level; and, (2) work at same location, frequently together. (FAA, Airway Facilities Div., Eastern Region, 

A/SLMR No. 94)

Unit limited to WB employees and excluding GS employees inappropriate where: (1) there are centralized personnel policies and programs which are common to both 

classifications and transfers between the two; (2) botl\ groups 

share (a) similar working conditions, (b) common supervision, (c) regular on-the-job contact, (d) common eating 

and parking facilities; and, (3) the two groups mutually assist 

each other in the course of their assignments. (Nat’l. Capital 

Parks, A/SLMR No. 114)

Unit limited to WB employees but excluding GS employees found inappropriate despite separate pay classifications. 

(Army Corps of Engrs., St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 115)

Unit limited to WB technicians not appropriate, because 

of no community of interest separate and distinct from other 

employees. (Miss. Nat’l. Guard, Thompson Field and Camp 

Shelby, A/SLMR No. 123)

Claimed unit of WB employees not appropriate where included employees do not have identifiable community of interest separate and distinct from excluded employees. (Richard B. Russell Research Cntr., Ga., A/SLMR No. 189)

Unit limited to Activity’s Housing Division WB employees 

with GS excluded, is not appropriate. (Housing Division, HQ 

9th Infantry Division and Ft. Lewis, Washington, A/SLMR 

No. 209)

A/S found that a unit limited to WG employees, not appropriate. (Bureau of Public Debt, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR 

No. 378)

WB and GS Employees. See 20 20 00, “GS and WB Employees.”

42
25 04 04

Warehouse Employees. Unit of all nonsupervisory warehouse employees found appropriate. (New England Exchange Region, A/SLMR No. 54)

20 24 00

Post*Decisional Intervention, Showing of Interest

and Withdrawal

20 24 04

Posting of Notice of Unit Determination

Where unit found appropriate is substantially different 

from that sought, A/S directed posting of a Notice of Unit 

Determination in areas where notices are normally posted 

affecting employees eligible to vote, pursuant to which any 

labor organization may seek intervention, in accordance 

with Sec. 202.5 of Regs., for sole purpose of appearing on 

ballot. (Army, St. Louis District, Corps of Engrs., A/SLMR 

No. 17; Nat’l. Guard Bureau, Adj. Gen., Ga., A/SLMR No. 

74; 2nd Coast Guard Dstrct., St. Louis, A/SLMR No. 93; 

HEW, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

102; Agriculture, Schenck Civilian Conservation Cntr., N.C., 

A/SLMR No. 116; Material Command, Red River Army 

Depot, A/SLMR No. 131; GSA, Region 10, Interagency 

Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR No. 146; Lone 

Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 187; and Cal. Air Nat’l. Guard Hq., 146th Tactical Airlift Wing, Van Nuys, Cal., A/SLMR No. 259)

20 24 08

Showing of Interest

Petition dismissed where showing of interest is inadequate 

for appropriate unit, which is larger than that sought. (Alaskan ^change System, So. Dstrct and HQ., A/SLMR No. 

32; DSA, Defense Depot, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 

107; Agriculture, Schenck Civilian Conservation Cntr., N.C., 

A/SLMR No. 116; NAF Activity, Ft. Benning, Ga., A / 

SLMR No. 188; and Nat’l. Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm., Wash., 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 193)

Where record is unclear as to adequacy of Petitioner’s 

showing of interest because of inclusion of certain disputed 

categories and exclusion of others by A/S decision, appropriate AA is directed to determine such adequacy before proceeding to election or, if inadequate, petition should be dismissed. (Customs Bureau, Region IV, A/SLMR No. 152; 

NAF Activity, Ft. Benning, Ga., A/SLMR No. 188; and 

Nat’l. Hwy Traffic Safety Adm., Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No.

193)

Where election is directed in unit larger than that sought, 

but record is unclear as to adequacy of Petitioner’s showing 

of interest in unit found appropriate, before proceeding to 

election, AA is directed to reevaluate showing of interest, 

and if inadequate, petition is to be dismissed. (Army HQ., 

Army Training Cntr. Engineer, Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., 

A/SLMR No. 183; Air Force, NAF Activities, Tyndall 

AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 226)

20 24 12

Opportunity to Withdraw

Where A/S directed an election in a unit substantially different than that sought by petitioner, but petitioner has sufficient showing of interest, it may withdraw its petition if it 

does not desire to proceed to an election in the unit found 

appropriate, upon notice to the appropriate AA within 10

days of A/S Decision. (Army, St. Louis Dstrct., Corps of 

Engrs., A/SLMR No. 17; Nat’l. Guard Bureau, Adj. Gen., 

Ga., A/SLMR No. 74; HEW, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 102; Material Command, Red 

River Army Depot, A/SLMR No. 131; GSA, Region 10, 

Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, Ore., A/SLMR 

No. 146; Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, 

Tex., A/SLMR No. 187; and Calif. Air Nat’l. Guard HQ., 

146th Tactical Airlift Wing, Van Nuys, Calif., A/SLMR No. 

259)

A/S found that petitioning labor organization had sufficient showing of interest to be treated as intervenor in election in unit found appropriate, sought by another Petitioner, 

and directed that its name be placed on ballot. However, 

because unit found appropriate is larger than unit sought 

initially, intervenor may withdraw from election upon notice 

to AA within 10 days of A/S Decision. (Army Engr. Div., 

New England, A/SLMR No. 5; Minn. Army Nat’l. Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 14; GSA, PBS, San Francisco, Calif., A / 

SLMR No. 39; Army Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, 

N.J., A/SLMR No. 77; Army Electronics Command, Ft. 

Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 83; Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex., A/SLMR No. 187; and 

Calif. Air Nat’l. Guard HQ., 146th Tactical Airlift Wing, 

Van Nuys, Calif., A/SLMR No. 259)

25 00 00

REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND

POST-ELECTION STAGES

25 04 00

Voting Procedures

25 04 04 

Professionals

Elections were directed in separate voting groups of professionals and nonprofessionals to determine desires of professionals on inclusion with nonprofessionals, pursuant to 

Sec. 10(b)(4) of EO and in accordance with procedure specified in Decision, Order and Direction of Election. (Army 

Engr. Div., New England, A/SLMR No. 5)

Challenge to ballot of Occupational Health Nurse, as professional employee, who was not afforded opportunity for 

professional self-determination ballot, sustained where she 

was found to be professional and there was failure to comply 

with Sec. 10(b)(4) of EO requirement for professional selfdetermination as to inclusion in unit with nonprofessionals. 

(GSA, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 100)

Where professional employees are granted option of separate unit or inclusion in existing nonprofessional unit, if 

professionals vote for inclusion with nonprofessionals, separate tally on second question as to votes for or against the 

labor organization would be meaningless and unnecessary. 

Separate tally on second question is necessary only if professionals vote for separate unit. (Army Safeguard Logistics 

Command and Army Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 224)

Self-determination election directed for professionals 

where professional and nonprofessional employees are sought 

in one unit. (Nat’l. Science Foundation, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 316)

43
25 08 08

Challenge to ballot sustained and ballot voided where, on 

two-question professional ballot requesting preferences as 

to (a) inclusion in unit with nonprofessionals, and (b) choice 

between competent labor organization or neither, the voter, 

while marking second question, omitted any choice on first. 

(R A/S No. 40)

25 04 08

Self-Determination

Self-determination election directed among plumbers, 

pipefitters and related classifications in view of finding that 

such group may constitute separate appropriate unit or be 

included in more comprehensive unit. If majority of valid 

votes of plumbers and related classifications are for labor 

organization seeking to represent them separately, separate 

unit is appropriate. In such event, more comprehensive unit, 

but excluding plumbers and related classifications, is appropriate. If majority of valid votes of plumbers and related 

classifications are not for labor organization seeking to represent them separately, their votes will be pooled with 

remainder of employees in more comprehensive unit, which 

combined group is held to be appropriate unit. (Naval Air 

Station, Alameda, Cal., A/SLMR No. 6)

No self-determination election granted to employees, 

despite recent bargaining history, where exclusive representative is found to be defunct, and such employees are 

included in petitioned for broader unit. (FAA, A/SLMR 

No. 173)

Self-determination elections granted in 3 smaller units 

encompassed by District-wide petition, where such smaller 

units have collective bargaining history. If majority of 

employees voting in such self-determination elections do 

not select incumbent union to represent their group separately, their votes will be pooled with those of employees 

in District-wide election. (Army Engineer District, Mobile, 

Ala., A/SLMR No. 206)

Where Petitioner requested that claimed employees be 

given opportunity to determine whether or not they desire 

to be represented in existing overall unit represented by 

Petitioner, and where alternative was voting for separate 

representation in residual unit with Intervenor as representative, A/S found request consistent with purposes of EO. 

Accordingly, if majority of employees in unit found appropriate vote for Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in existing unit currently 

represented by Petitioner. On other hand, if majority of 

employees vote for Intervenor, they will be taken to have 

indicated their desire to be represented in separate, residual 

unit. (Army, U.S. Dependents’ Schools, European Area, 

A/SLMR No. 260)

In view of Intervenor’s clear intention to have a substantial portion of unit found appropriate included within 

existing Division-wide unit, A/S found that employees of 

newly formed small unit found appropriate should be given 

opportunity to becpme part of existing Division-wide unit 

or unit found appropriate. (JFK Cntr., Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 305)

Self-determination election directed where professional 

and nonprofessional employees are sought in one unit. 

(Nat’l. Science Foundation, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

316)

Self-determination election directed among Exchange 

employees in Exchange-wide unit and two separate satellite 

locations in view of finding that such satellite locations may 

constitute separate appropriate units or be included in 

larger Exchange-wide unit. (Army & AF Exchange Service, 

NW Area Exchange, Fort Lewis, Wash., A/SLMR No. 

338)

Self-determination election granted in an existing recognized Division-wide unit of WG employees encompassed 

by appropriate Regionwide petition. (GSA, Region 2, New 

York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 358)

25 04 12

Role of Observers

Although the A/S ordered the 19(a)(1) and (2) complaint dismissed based on the rationale contained in the 

Council’s Decision, he noted that observers are not merely 

guardians of a particular sponsor’s interests in an adversary 

forum but, rather, they protect the integrity of the election 

process and, as such, further the purposes and policies of 

the Order. (IRS, Fresno, Cal., A/SLMR No. 309)

25 04 16

Severance

If majority of guards in existing mixed unit of guards and 

nonguards represented by nonguard labor organization, 

which is not allowed on ballot, do not choose guard labor 

organization seeking to represent a more comprehensive 

unit of guards, then employees will be viewed to have indicated their desire to remain in existing unit. If majority of 

guards in existing mixed unit vote for guard labor organization seeking to represent a more comprehensive unit, 

then votes for Petitioner are accorded their face value and 

votes against severance are counted as part of total number 

of valid votes cast, but neither for nor against Petitioner. 

(GSA, Region 9, San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 333)

25 08 00

Objections

(

25 08 04

Under EO 10988

Labor organization offer during election campaign of free 

legal services for job-related grievances during life of EO 

10988 is consistent with that EO which permitted employee 

choice of representative in processing grievance. (Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 31)

25 08 08

Procedure

Objections to election concerning conduct by Activity representative in pre-election speech, not entertained by AU 

where scope of hearing was limited solely to challenged 

ballots, and A/S previously had ruled on objections following request for review of ARD’s Report on Objections. (VA, 

Regional Office, Newark, N.J., A/SLMR No. 38)

Objections to election, alleging that eligible employee was 

deprived of opportunity to vote because his name was not 

on certified voters’ list, not entertained by ALJ where scope 

of hearing was limited solely to challenged ballots. (VA, 

Regional Office, Newark, N.J., A/SLMR No. 38)

Objections to election, alleging irregularities by Activity 

and A/S representatives, such as improper mailing of bal44
25 08 16

lots, dual voting, etc., overruled. (Army Tank Automotive 

Command, Warren, Mich., A/SLMR No. 56)

Objecting party’s failure to appear at hearing on objections is cause for over-ruling objections, since objecting 

party has burden of proof under Sec. 202.20(d) of Regs. 

(VA Hospital, Downey, 111., A/SLMR No. 81)

A/S granted motion to exclude testimony given at hearing on objections to election about allegedly improper conduct by two specific individuals because allegation was not 

properly before ALJ where objections themselves failed to 

mention the two individuals, while specifying others. (Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Kansas City, 

Mo., A/SLMR No. 137)

Period for filing objections commenced when AA furnished tally of ballots to Petitioner by mail, after Petitioner 

refused to accept service of tally of ballots at conclusion 

of election, and accordingly, objections were timely. However, refusal to accept service of tally of ballots at conclusion of election to gain additional time for filing objections 

is not condoned and, in future, failure to accept service of 

tally will not operate to extend period for filing objections. 

(Customs Bureau, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 169)

Petitioner’s attempt, at hearing, to litigate its contention 

that Intervenor did not make proper service of objections 

to election on Petitioner under Sec. 202.20(a) of Regs, 

found improper because matter was outside scope of hearing in this case. (Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 177)

Objections to election challenging late intervention which 

were granted by AA, overruled by the A/S on grounds that 

agreement to, and participation in, consent election, with 

full knowledge of late intervention, constituted waiver. 

(R A/S No. 12)

Labor organization, eliminated from runoff election by 

results of original election, was not party to, and therefore 

not entitled to file objections to runoff election (R A/S 

No. 17).

A/S will not police side agreements of parties on preelection campaigning, and breach of such agreement will 

not serve to set aside election, absent evidence that conduct constituting such breach had independent, improper 

effect on conduct or results of election. (R A/S No. 20)

Objections to conduct affecting results of election contained in request for review, but not in objections filed 

previously pursuant to Sec. 202.20(a) of Regs., are untimely 

and will not be considered by A/S. (R A/S No. 22)

Burden of proof in objections to election, including submission of evidence, must be borne by objecting party during AA’s investigation, as well as during hearing on objections, under Sec. 202.20 of Regs. (R A/S No. 39)

ARD’s dismissal of objections upheld by A/S where 

objecting party did not serve copies of objections on other 

parties to election until one week after timely service upon 

AA, thus failing to meet simultaneous service requirement 

of Sec. 202.20(a) of Regs. (R A/S No. 41)

Objections to conduct alleged to affect results of runoff 

election based on event occurring prior to first election but 

not urged as objection to that election may not be considered as grounds for setting aside runoff election, except

in unusual circumstances. Critical period as basis for such 

objections begins running from date of first election. (R 

A/S No. 50)

Objection to election based upon alleged ineligibility of 

voters who cast ballots without challenge is not proper 

objection but is, in essence, challenge which only can be 

made before ballot is cast and commingled with other valid 

ballots. Objections related to working of election mechanisms and fair and accurate count of ballots, while challenges related to eligibility of prospective voters. (R A/S 

No. 51)

25 08 12

Timing of Objectionable Conduct

No impact found on December 1969 election where offers 

to pay for solicitation of new members were discontinued 

in April 1969. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 31)

Election set aside and new election directed where labor 

organization “A” distributed leaflet on day before election 

claiming endorsement by official of organization “B”, whom 

it erroneously and deceptively characterized as national vice 

president of “B” rather than as president of one of its locals. 

Distribution of leaflet on day before election prevented 

labor organization “B” from making effective reply. (Army 

Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Mich., A/SLMR 

No. 56)

Election set aside where Petitioner distributed leaflet containing either misrepresentations or deceptions concerning 

Intervenor on day before election, when Intervenor had no 

opportunity to reply before election, and employees could 

not have evaluated the statements in their full light. (Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., A/SLMR No. 177)

25 08 16

Agency Rules on Campaigning

Activity’s rules restricting communication with employees 

by labor organizations, pending execution of election agreement by parties, promulgated under authority of EO 10988 

and in conformance with Civil Service Commission guidelines, and applied equally to all labor organizations, were 

presumed valid. Charleston Naval Shipyard^ A/SLMR No. 

1, is distinguishable because restrictive rules in that case 

were put into effect after January 1, 1970, and were found 

to violate EO 11491. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR 

No. 31)

Activity’s announcement of, and grant of, equal treatment to both non-intervening labor organization and Petitioner with respect to electioneering privileges, including 

access to its facilities, which non-intervenor used for carrying on “no” vote campaign, was improper regardless of 

recognized status non-intervenor had previously enjoyed, 

and such Activity conduct constituted interference affecting results of election, which was set aside and new election 

directed. (Geological Survey Cntr., Menlo Park, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 143)

Objections to election sustained, election set aside, and 

second election directed where Activity refused to permit 

labor organizations to use its intra-office mail facilities to 

communicate with electorate, which is dispersed over wide 

geographical area, with some located in remote areas, and 

where employee addresses were not furnished and access 

to employee bulletin boards not permitted, inasmuch as

45
25 08 20

Activity has affirmative obligation to provide some means 

for electorate to receive necessary information to make 

intelligent, informed choice. (Customs Bureau, Boston, 

Mass., A/SLMR No. 169)

Objections to election based on denial of access by nonemployees to Activity premises to conduct personal and 

direct election campaign with employees, (as distinguished 

from access through mail), overruled where objecting party 

failed to show that employees at whom campaigning is 

directed are inaccessible, thus rendering reasonable attempts 

to communicate with them on direct basis outside Activity’s 

premises, ineffective. (Customs Bureau, Boston, Mass., 

A/SLMR No. 169)

Agency regulations prohibiting labor organizations from 

using its intraoffice mail facilities for communicating with 

electorate are not controlling if they contravene purposes 

of EO. (Customs Bureau, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 

169)

Objections alleging that Activity permitted Union which 

was not party to election to use its facilities to campaign 

against Petitioner overruled where such campaign was 

neither assisted nor encouraged by Activity and was conducted solely by Activity employees. Fact that non-competing Union had been barred from appearing on ballot 

because of its prior ULP did not convert legitimate representation activities of its employee supporters and of its 

officials, who were members of the bargaining unit in which 

the election was held, into conduct which would warrant 

setting aside election. (FAA, N.Y. ATC Cntr., A/SLMR 

No. 184)

While Activity should not police or censor campaign 

propaganda, it has right to ensure that literature posted on 

its property is not violative of any law. Activity’s conduct, 

on only two occasions, in preventing Petitioner from posting allegedly libelous campaign literature on Activity’s bulletin board, does not warrant setting aside election where 

this was sole limitation on circulation of Petitioner’s campaign literature and where Petitioner had ample opportunity 

to, and in fact did, communicate with voters by other means. 

(FAA, N.Y. ATC Cntr., A/SLMR No. 184)

In absence of exceptions, A/S adopted ALJ’s recommendation that objections to election be overruled where objecting petitioning Union failed to establish as objectionable 

Activity’s conduct in permitting certain employees to take 

leave without pay to work full time for intervening incumbent’s campaign, during work hours in industrial areas of 

Activity, because any employee-supporter of the objecting 

Union could have requested leave without pay status which. 

Activity stated, would have been granted. (Portsmouth 

Naval Shipyard, N.H., A/SLMR No. 241)

Objections to election, alleging that Activity’s conduct in 

approving distribution of anti-union literature by employees 

affected election results, overruled where literature’s content was neither beyond proper bounds nor sponsored nor 

endorsed by Activity, and Sec. 1(a) employee rights include 

right to express views freely in election campaign, even if 

unfavorable to particular labor organization. (R A /S No. 

32)

25 08 20

Campaign Communications

Although Petitioner misrepresented facts as to offer of 

free life insurance, intervenor had opportunity to, and in

fact did, respond, providing employees with basis for independent evaluation. Such situation is best handled through 

election campaign process, and, accordingly, objection based 

upon alleged misrepresentation was held without merit. 

(Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 31)

Election set aside and new election directed where labor 

organization “A” distributed leaflet on day before election 

claiming endorsement by official of labor organization “B”, 

whom it erroneously and deceptively characterized as national vice president of “B” rather than as president of one 

of its locals. Deception constituted campaign trickery involving substantive misrepresentation of fact which impaired 

employees’ ability to vote intelligently on the issue. (Army 

Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Mich., A/SLMR 

No. 56)

Misrepresentation in leaflet distributed to employees by 

one labor organization five days before election alleging 

that other labor organization had purchased and operated 

expensive jet airplane for its top officials was campaign 

propaganda which could be properly evaluated and lacked 

significant impact on election. (Army Tank Automotive 

Command, Warren, Mich., A/SLMR No. 56)

Election set aside where Petitioner distributed leaflet 

containing either misrepresentations or deceptions concerning Intervenor on day before election, when Interventor had 

no opportunity to reply before election, and employees could 

not have evaluated the statements in their full light. (Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., A/SLMR No. 177)

Objections to election, based on Activity’s prohibition on 

Petitioner’s posting allegedly libelous literature on Activity 

bulletin board, overruled where this was sole limitation on 

circulation of Petitioner’s campaign literature and where 

Petitioner had ample opportunity to, and in fact did, communicate with voters by other means. (FAA, N.Y. ATC 

Cntr., A/SLMR No. 184)

Objection overruled where the objecting labor organization had ample opportunity prior to the election to respond 

effectively to any alleged misrepresentation which may have 

occurred. (NAF Activities, XVIII Airborne Corps & Ft. 

Bragg, N.C., A/SLMR No. 284)

Publication by Activity of a list of employee positions by 

job title, series and job number alleged to be ineligible to 

vote constituted objectionable conduct warranting the setting 

aside of the election. (Army Aviation Systems Command, 

St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 315)

Objection to election filed by Intervenor alleging that 

handbill distributed by Petitioner contained false and misleading information concerning Petitioner’s dues structure 

and the ability of employees to withdraw from membership 

in Petitioner overruled, where evidence discloses that statements in handbill concerning the Petitioner’s dues structure 

were true and that the policy of Petitioner did not restrict, 

in any way, the ability of employees to withdraw from 

membership in Petitioner. Intervenor’s argument that latter 

statement was misleading, in that an employee may not at 

any time revoke a properly executed dues withholding 

authorization, rejected, since this argument misconstrues 

the express language of Petitioner’s statement in the handbill. (Army & AF Exchange Service, Ft. Polk, La., A/SLMR 

No. 407)

Objection to election filed by Intervenor asserting that 

Petitioner distributed a handbill containing certain un46
25 12 08

founded statements two days before the election, and that 

such timing precluded the Intervenor from responding, 

overruled, based on finding that the Petitioner actually 

commenced distribution of handbill in question eight days 

before the election, and that such timing did not preclude 

the Intervenor from making an effective reply. (Army & 

AF Exchange Service, Ft. Polk, La., A/SLMR No. 407)

Campaign literature by one of two unions in election 

criticizing Activity’s budget and staffing was recognizable 

as self-serving propaganda and not of nature which would 

improperly affect results of election. Accordingly, objections 

to election were overruled and election was not set aside. 

(R A/S No. 20)

25 08 24

Promises of Benefit

Promise by labor organization during election campaign 

of free $10,000 accidental jdeath and dismemberment insurance policy was found to constitute granting of immediate 

tangible economic gift which impairs employee’s freedom 

of choice based, in part, upon payment of $10,000 to deceased employee’s beneficiary. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 

A/SLMR No. 31)

Offer of free insurance coverage by labor organization, 

contingent upon outcome of election, was improper promise 

of benefit. Accordingly, election was set aside and second 

election directed. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 

31)

25 08 28

Conduct of Election

Shift supervisor’s conduct improperly affected results of 

election and required setting it aside and directing second 

election where: (a) on day prior to election, she told 

employees she would escort everyone to polls and make 

sure they voted; (b) in presence of numerous employees, 

she told two employees that if they worked half as hard on 

job as they did for union they would both be in higher 

grades; and (c) she entered polling area and questioned 

election officials about employee’s ballot in presence of 

other employees. (Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Kansas City, Mo., A/SLMR No. 137)

Objecting Union failed to meet its burden of proof to 

show that unauthorized presence of employee vice-president 

of opposing Union in two polling places for limited time 

improperly affected results of election, where employee did 

not converse with voters or otherwise campaign, did not 

wear any form of union or personal identification and was 

not requested to leave polling areas by parties’ observers. 

(Army Transportation Cntr., Fort Eustis, Va., A/SLMR 

No. 157)

25 08 32

Agency Neutrality

A/S found that certain pre-election conduct of a supervisor of non-unit employees with respect to a unit employee 

improperly affected the results of an election and further 

held, contrary to the ALJ, that statements made by the same 

supervisor to a unit employee on the day prior to the election also constituted objectionable conduct which warranted 

setting aside the election. A/S noted that a policy of Agency 

neutrality in any representation election campaign is clearly

established in the preamble and Sec. 1(a) of the Order. 

(Antilles Consolidated Schools, Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, P.R., 

A/SLMR No. 349)

25 12 00

Challenges

25 12 04

Eligibility of Employee

(See also: 20 20 00, “Employee Categories and Classfications”)

Stipulations by parties resolving certain determinative 

challenges based on supervisory status, which were relied 

upon in issuing certification of representative, were revealed 

to be sham stipulations when certified representative subsequently filed petition for clarification of unit, seeking to 

include in unit, among others, employees previously excluded by stipulation. A/S ordered prior certification revoked because of substantial doubt as to its validity. (111. 

Air Nat’l. Guard, 182nd, A/SLMR No. 105, reversed, 

FLRC No. 71A-59)

Parties’ stipulation as to eligibility or ineligibility of certain voters will be accepted in absence of any evidence that 

such stipulation is improper. (Army, Automated Logistics 

Mgt. Systms. Agency, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 113)

Notwithstanding terms of parties’ consent election agreement, challenges to individuals determined to be supervisors 

are sustained. (Army, Automated Logistics Mgt. Systms. 

Agency, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 113)

Individuals, challenged as management officials, were held 

to be eligible by A/S where ALJ had found they, in fact, 

were not management officials, but nonetheless, recommended finding them ineligible, based on his determination that 

parties’ consent election agreement excluded them, which 

consent agreement A/S held to be lacking in sufficient specificity or clarity to warrant finding them management officials. (Army, Automated Logistics Mgt. Systms. Agency, 

St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 113)

A/S adopted parties’ stipulation, absent any evidence to 

contrary, and sustained challenges to ballots of three nonprofessional employees and 29 professional employees. (Agriculture, Northern Mktg. and Nutrition Research, Peoria,

111., A/SLMR No. 120)

Employee whose name does not appear on voter eligibility 

list, and who one or more parties contend is ineligible to 

vote, nonetheless, may cast challenged ballot, on request, if 

such employee claims to be eligible to vote. (R A/S No. 53)

25 12 08

Questions Concerning Ballot

Challenge to ballot cast by employee who did not follow 

instructions for voting by mail, in that he failed to enclose 

his ballot in separate sealed envelope, overruled. Failure to 

cast vote in strict compliance with election agreement and 

applicable regulations is not sufficient to void ballot, notwithstanding fact that observer-in-charge, a management 

representative, saw ballot and made challenge, since no one 

else saw or challenged ballot. (VA, Regional Office, Newark, 

N.J., A/SLMR No. 38)

Challenge to ballot containing “X” and additional markings in same box is overruled where voter’s intent is clear. 

(VA, Regional Office, Newark, N.J., A/SLMR No. 38)

47
25 20 00

Challenge to ballot of Occupational Health Nurse, as professional employee who was not afforded opportunity for 

professional self-determination ballot, sustained where she 

was found to be professional and there was failure to comply 

with Sec. 10(b)(4) of EO requirement for professional selfdetermination as to inclusion in unit with nonprofessionals. 

(GSA, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 100)

Challenge to ballot sustained and ballot voided where, on 

two-question professional ballot requesting preference as to 

(a) inclusion in unit with nonprofessionals, and (b) choice 

between competing labor organizations or neither, voter, 

while marking second question, omitted any choice on first. 

(R A/S No. 40)

25 12 12

Timing of Challenge

Challenge to voting eligibility of employees must be made 

before ballots are cast and commingled with other ballots 

and cannot be made in form of objections to election after 

ballots are case. (R A/S No. 51)

25 16 00

Certification

FLRC set aside the decision of A/S in A/SLM R No. 105

and remanded case to A/S for appropriate action based on 

its finding that basis for A /S’s decision to revoke certification 

of union is inconsistent with purposes of EO and, therefore 

should be set aside. (FLRC No. 71A-59)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 71A-59, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A/SLMR No. 105 and directed AA to reinstate 

union’s certification. (111. Air Nat’l. Guard, 182nd, A/SLMR 

No. 225)

A tie vote between “Yes” and “No” choices in one union 

election does not warrant setting aside and rerunning election. Certification of exclusive representative requires majority of valid votes cast. (R A/S No. 19)

25 20 00

Clarification of Unit

(See also: 10 04 16, “Types of Petitions: Procedure, CU”).

Petition for clarification of unit dismissed, inasmuch as 

Petitioner, certified exclusive representative, sought to include in unit certain employees whom it had previously 

agreed to exclude as supervisors in post-election stipulation 

resolving certain determinative challenges. Subsequent filing 

of petition for clarification of unit, absent any new evidence 

of information not previously considered, constituted abuse 

of election process. (111. Air Nat’l. Guard, 182nd, A/SLMR 

No. 105, reversed FLRC No. 71A-59)

Stipulations in which parties agreed to supervisory or nonsupervisory status of employees, which matter had been subject of unit clarification petitions, constitute, in effect, withdrawal requests for petitions with respect to agreed upon 

employees and, in absence of any evidence to contrary, A/S 

approved withdrawal requests. ^ .J . DOD, A/SLMR No. 

121)

FLRC set aside the decisions of A/S in A/SLM R No. 128

and A/SLM R No. 129 and remanded both cases to A/S for 

appropriate action consistent with respective FLRC decisions 

regarding definition of supervisor. (FLRC Nos. 72A-11 and 

72A-12, respectively)

Pursuant to FLRC Nos. 72At11 and 72A-12 respectively, 

A/S reversed previous findings in A/SLMR No. 128 and 

129, respectively, and concluded that employees in disputed 

classifications are supervisors. (A/SLMR Nos. 297 and 298, 

respectively).

A/S original findings in A/SLMR Nos. 128 and 129, respectively, were that employees in disputed classifications 

were not supervisors. (Naval Weapons Cntr., China Lake, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 128; Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 

Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 129)

Unit clarified by excluding employees in four job classifications because-they perform supervisory duties over two 

or more persons. (McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, 

A/SLIyIR No. 134)

Exclusively represented unit employees at Fort Dix Post 

Exchange is clarified (and name of Activity is changed) to 

include unrepresented employees formerly employed by McGuire Air Force Base Exchange where the two former 

organizational entities have been consolidated, and McGuire 

Air Force Base Exchange Headquarters has been phased 

out and its employees and authority transferred to newly 

established Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange Headquarters. (AAFES, Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange, 

Fort Dix, N.J., A/SLMR No. 195)

Unit is clarified to conform to existing circumstances 

where scope of recognized unit was diminished due to reorganization, but remaining unit employees in warehouse operation continue to perform previous duties. (Arniy and Air 

Force Exchange Service, Ft. Sam Houston, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 199)

Unit clarified, pursuant to Petition for Clarification of 

Unit, by including “Not-to-Exceed” (NTE) Language Instructors, and excluding “When-Actually-Employed” (WAE) 

Language Instructors from unit of all nonsupervisory Language Instructors. (Defense Language Institute, East Coast 

Branch, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 213)

Where no employee is filling classification it would not 

effectuate purposes and policies of EO to clarify certified 

unit in this regard. (Treasury, Division of Disbursement, 

Birmingham, Ala., A/SLMR No. 217)

Unit clarified by inclusion of civilian technicians of Activity’s augmented security police force found not to be 

“guards” as defined in EO. (Cal. Air Nat’l. Guard HQ, 163rd 

Fighter Group, Ontario, Cal., A/SLMR No. 252)

Existing unit of professional employees is clarified to include professionals of a mixed unit of professionals and 

nonprofessionals of a discontinued Activity, and an existing 

unit of nonprofessionals is clarified to include the nonprofessionals of the same mixed unit of professionals and nonprofessionals. (Army Safeguard Systems Com., Huntsville, 

Ala., A/SLMR No. 288)

Unit clarified by including a group of employees in WB 

unit who had previously been included in WB unit prior to 

change in job title and change in method of compensation 

from WB to GS. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR 

No. 302)

Unit clarified by including project directors in a unit of all 

professional and nonprofessional employees where role of 

project directors had not been shown to extend beyond that 

of an expert or professional rendering resource information 

or recommendations with respect to the policy in question.

48
30 04 00

(Defense Mapping Agency Topographic Center, West Warwick, R.I., A/SLMR No. 310)

Unit clarified so that seasonal supervisors, found to perform supervisory functions during firefighting season but not 

found to perform in supervisory capacity during the remainder of the year, excluded from unit during period when exercising supervisory functions, and included in the unit 

during those periods when they exercise no supervisory functions, citing Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, District Office, Lakeview, Oregon, A/SLMR No. 

212. (Angeles National Forest, Pasadena, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 339)

Petition for clarification of unit is dismissed where A/S 

found, contrary to Activity’s contention, that Clerk-Stenographers were not confidential employees, and that General 

Supply Specialist was not a supervisor in an existing, exclusively recognized unit. (FAA, SW Reg. Airway Facilities 

Sector, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 342)

Employees of CSLA continued to share a community of 

interest with employees in the existing unit despite a recent 

reorganization which established CSLA as a separate Activity. (Strategic Communications Com., Ft. Huachuca, Ariz., 

A/SLMR No. 351)

Where Activity sought to clarify the status of certain electronic technicians who had been promoted to the GS-12 

level, A/S found that the promotion of such employees did 

not affect their duties and working conditions or the personnel policies under which they worked and issued an order 

clarifying the unit to include all of the Activity’s technicians 

assigned to the facilities involved. (DOT, SW Region, Tulsa 

Airway Facilities Sector, Tulsa, Okla., A/SLMR No. 364)

Unit clarified to exclude Secretary (typing), GS-5, as confidential and include Personnel Clerk (typing), GS-5, as not 

confidential. Personnel Assistant, GS-7, and Personnel Assistant (typing), GS-6, excluded as engaged in Federal personnel work. Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-10; Warehouse 

Leader, WL-7; Payroll Clerk, GS-6; Military Personnel Technician, GS-7, and Supply Technician, GS-7, all included 

where alleged certification of supervisory duties not backed 

up by testimony and in conflict with formal job description. 

(Pa. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 376)

Following transfer of function from one command to another, employees involved in the transfer continued to perform job functions similar to those previously performed, 

under similar working conditions and at the same general 

location. Established bargaining unit clarified to include 

transferred functional group. (Camp McCoy, Sparta, Wise., 

A/SLMR No. 377)

Joint petitions for clarification of existing, exclusively 

recognized unit dismissed where, despite an administrative 

merger, reorganization resulted in; (1) only limited physical 

relocation; (2) did not substantially affect the terms and conditions of the employees’ employment; (3) the employees 

were not so thoroughly combined or integrated as to constitute accretions or additions to previously existing unit. 

(Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, A/SLMR No. 389)

25 24 00

Amendment of Recognition or Certification

Certification amended to conform to existing circumstances resulting from change in identity of Activity, precipitated by Agency reorganization. (Army and AF Exchange 

Service, Norton AFB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 190)

Designation of Activity in prior certification is changed 

to reflect change in name. (AAFES, Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange, Fort Dix, N.J., A/SLMR No. 195)

Where Union filed Clarification of Unit (CU) Petition to 

change its existing recognition to reflect change in designation of Activity resulting from reorganization, A/S issued 

order clarifying unit to reflect current designation of Activity 

but noted that under current regulations. Petition for 

Amendment of Recognition or Certification (AC Petition), 

rather than CU Petition, is appropriate vehicle for seeking 

change in designation of Activity. (FAA, Chicago Airports 

District Office, 111., A/SLMR No. 250)

Designation of Union in prior certification is changed to 

reflect change in name. (Army & AF Exchange Service, 

Kirtland AFB Exchange, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 371)

30 00 00

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:

PROCEDURE

30 04 00

Requisites for Charges and Complaints

Alleged ULP violation of Sec. 20 of EO is inapplicable 

inasmuch as ULP violations are cognizable only under Sec. 

19 of EO. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR 

No. 1)

Unfair labor practice charge filed with agency must be in 

writing to satisfy requirements of Regs. (VA Hospital, 

Charleston, S.C., A/SLMR No. 87)

Post-hearing motion to dismiss complaint, based upon 

alleged failure to file pre-complaint charge in compliance 

with Regs., denied because orderly processing of unfair 

labor practice complaints requires that pre-complaint defects 

be raised prior to issuance of Notice of Hearing. (VA Hospital, Charleston, S.C., A/SLMR No. 87)

Motion to dismiss complaint for lack of specificity, made 

during hearing and in post-hearing brief, denied, where 

complaint contained sufficient detail to comply with Regs., 

and no evidence presented to indicate that Respondent had 

any misconception as to what allegations it would have to 

defend against or was denied adequate opportunity at hearing to present defense. (VA Hospital, Charleston, S.C., 

A/SLMR No. 87)

Labor organization need not be exclusive representative of 

employees in order to file unfair labor practice complaint in 

their behalf. (FAA Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, 

Okla., A/SLMR No. 117)

Reply to charge by party against whom charge is directed 

is not required under Sec. 203.2 of Regs. Even assuming 

Respondent’s conduct in this regard was inconsistent with 

Regs., it would not constitute refusal to consult, confer, or 

negotiate within meaning of Sec. 19(a)(6) of EO. (Army 

Materiel Command, Automatic Logistics Mgt. Systems 

Agency, A/SLMR No. 211)

Motion to dismiss complaint, on grounds that space on 

form for basis of complaint was left blank except for statement “see attached letter,” denied by A/S who clarified R

49
A/S No. 48 (which provides that “use of such phrases as 

‘see attached correspondence’ renders an otherwise adequate 

complaint invalid”) by stating that this policy was designed 

solely to advise Complainants that AO should not be required 

to go through parties’ entire report of investigation to ascertain basis of complaint. In instances such as this case, 

where attached letter contains clear and concise statement 

of basis of complaint, such complaint will not be considered 

defective. (DSA, DCASR, Burlingame, Cal., A/SLMR No.

247)

Where Activity was timely advised in complaint of all 

conduct alleged to be violative of EO, and amended complaint only added legal conclustion that additional Sec. of 

EO was violated, amended complaint was viewed as extension of original complaint and not barred by Sec. 203.2 of 

Regs. (HQ, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, 

California, A/SLMR No. 255)

Labor Organization, on behalf of supervisory employee, 

had standing to file the instant complaint. (IRS, Chicago 

District, 111., A/SLMR No. 279)

Telegram from Complainant to Respondent clearly putting 

Respondent on notice of violations of EO it was alleged 

to have committed constitutes charge within meaning of 

Regs. (Bur. of Medicine & Surgery, Great Lakes Naval 

Hosp., 111., A/SLMR No. 289)

Omission of narrative description from space on complaint form provided for describing attempts by parties to 

resolve alleged violations and results does not warrant dismissal of complaint. Noted that, in any event, attached 

correspondence described resolution attempts and results 

thereof. (Bur. of Medicine & Surgery, Great Lakes Naval 

Hosp., 111., A/SLMR No. 289)

Filing of complaint less than thirty days after filing of 

charge does not warrant dismissal of complaint where letter 

constituting final decision on charge has been issued by 

Respondent. (Bur. of Medicine & Surgery, Great Lakes 

Naval Hosp., 111., A/SLMR No. 289)

A/S dismissed as untimely that portion of complaint 

pertaining to the establishment of Youth Advisory Committee which took place more than 6 months prior to the 

filing of the pre-complaint charge although he did consider 

the establishment of the Youth Advisory Committee for the 

purpose of background in connection with relevant events 

which occurred within the 6 months’ period preceding the 

precomplaint charge. (VA Hospital, Muskogee, Okla., 

A/SLMR No. 301)

Motion to dismiss complaint as untimely granted where 

exclusive bargaining representative earlier filed identical 

unfair labor practice charge on behalf of individual employee, 

but failed to file complaint within prescribed 60 day period 

subsequent to Respondent’s final answer to the charge. A/S 

concluded that when exclusive bargaining agent filed charge 

on behalf of individual employee, it acted as agent for the 

employee. Noted also that the employee had executed a 

power of attorney authorizing the bargaining agent to act 

in his behalf. (Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nev., 

A/SLMR No. 380)

Failure to file prerequisite charge with party against whom 

complaint is directed pursuant to Sec. 203.2 of Regs, justifies 

dismissal of complaint. (R A/S No. 16)

30 08 00

Sec. 203.2 requires written charge, containing clear, 

concise statement of facts constituting alleged unfair labor 

practice, including time and place of occurrence of acts in 

question, to enable parties to be in position to resolve matter 

informally. (R A/S No. 33)

Complaints are deficient and will not be accepted or 

docketed as valid where: (1) signature is missing; (2) complaint form fails to set forth particular acts complained of, 

along with attendant details; or (3) item on “Basis of the 

Complaint” on form is left blank except for such phrases 

as “see attached correspondence.” (R A/S No. 48)

30 08 00

Complaint Proceedings: Investigation Stage

Respondent’s motion, after issuance of Notice of Hearing, 

to dismiss complaint because of Complainant’s failure to 

file investigative report with complaint as required by Sec. 

203.3(e) of Regs, denied as untimely, inasmuch as such 

contention must be raised with AA during investigation 

period and certainly prior to issuance of Notice of Hearing. 

(EPA, Perrine Primate Lab., Florida, A/SLMR No. 136)

Where no evidence of any timely allegation of Complainant’s noncompliance with pre-complaint requirements 

of Regs., failure of ULP charge to include Sec. 19(a)(2) 

allegation does not preclude processing such allegation in 

complaint. (Navy Dept., and Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, 

Va., A/SLMR No. 139)

Purpose of report of investigation is to provide information which will assist ARD in making determination concerning whether there is a reasonable basis for the complaint which would warrant the issuance of a notice of 

hearing. Omission of charge from report of investigation 

does not warrant dismissal of complaint where ARD became 

aware of content of charge during his investigation. (Bur. 

of Medicine & Surgery, Great Lakes Naval Hosp., 111., 

A/SLMR No. 289)

Investigation of ULP complaints by AA is limited essentially to consideration of report of investigation by parties, 

which must be filed with complaint. AA should not undertake to conduct witnesses for Complainants because procurement of evidence from witnesses is part of burden of 

proof, which Complainant bears throughout all phases of 

case. (R A/S No. 24)

Failure of Complainant to submit timely report of investigation of ULP charge to AA which, pursuant to Sec. 

203.3(e) of Regs., must accompany complaint, was proper 

grounds for dismissal of complaint. (R A/S No. 24)

Information submitted by Complainant for first time in 

request for review will not be considered by A/S where 

such information (time and place of occurrence of alleged 

acts) is required by Regs., and Complainant had adequate 

opportunity to furnish it during investigation period provided in Regs, and prior to ARD dismissal. (R A/S No. 46)

Complainant’s refusal to cooperate in furnishing information required by Regs, to permit determination of timeliness of charge and complaint, may subject complaint to 

dismissal. (R A/S No. 47)

Date to be used in computing timeliness of complaint is 

that date when valid, properly filled out and signed complaint form is received by AO. (R A/S No. 48)

50
30 20 00

30 12 00

Hearing

30 12 04

Rulings of ALJs

Although violation of Sec. 19(a)(4) was not specifically 

alleged, ALJ considered complaint as including such alleged 

violation inasmuch as body of complaint described conduct 

that allegedly violated Sec. 19(a)(4). (2024th Communications Squadron, Moody Air Force Base, Ga., A/SLMR No.

248)

Respondent’s objection to introduction of testimony 

related to annual appraisal of another similarly situated 

employee sustained by ALJ because of document’s “confidential” nature. A/S found that ALJ committed prejudicial 

error in this regard by denying Complainant opportunity to 

introduce evidence which might have shown, alone or in conjunction with other evidence, that Complainant was treated 

in disparate and discriminatory manner. (NLRB, Region 

17, and NLRB, K.C., Mo., A/SLMR No. 295)

Although a ULP complaint must be filed within certain 

specified time period of alleged violations, events occurring 

outside such period may properly be introduced into evidence to provide background information and to shed light 

on events occurring within time period covered in complaint. (NLRB, Region 17, and NLRB, K.C., Mo., A/SLMR 

No. 295)

A/S found it unnecessary for ALJ to make specific ruling 

on Motion to Dismiss as Report and Recommendation 

clearly indicated Motion to Dismiss was, in fact, denied. 

(Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Wash., A/SLMR No. 332)

30 12 08

Untimely Amendments to Complaints

In complaint alleging Sec. 19(a)(2) violations. Complainant’s failure to allege violation of Sec. 19(a)(1), or 

to so amend complaint, and fact that some of conduct in 

question might be time-barred by Regs, led A/S not to 

consider such conduct under Sec. 19(a)(1), despite substantial questions as to whether Sec. 19(a)(1) was violated. 

(FAA, Houston Area Office, SW Region, Houston, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 126)

Where complaint had not been amended to include postcomplaint conduct, such conduct was not properly before 

ALJ and was not considered by A/S. (Dependent Schools, 

European Area (USDESEA) APO, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 

138)

30 12 12

Failure to Appear

Complainant Labor Organization’s waiver of both its 

appearance and filing of brief, even in hearing of consolidated cases involving similar allegations by another Labor 

Organization, is grounds for dismissing complaint by nonappearing Complainant because it has not met its burden 

of proof. (Navy Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, 

Va., A/SLMR No. 139)

30 12 16

Prejudicial Evidence

Acceptance into evidence of AO investigative file, inadvertently furnished to ALJ not prejudicial under all circumstances, including ALJ’s statement that file would not be 

utilized in'reaching decision, and absence of evidence that 

any party was prejudiced. (Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 154)

30 12 20

Technical Deficiencies

A/S found ALJ’s acceptance into evidence of oiler of settlement by Respondent, which allegedly contained an admission against interest, was in error because it was inconsistent 

with purposes and policies of EO of encouraging settlement 

of ULP’s. (Norton AFB, Cal., ASLMR No. 261)

With respect to Respondent’s motion pertaining to certain 

deficiencies in the complaint, the A/S noted that technical 

deficiencies raised, which were unrelated to putting the 

Respondent on notice of the alleged violation or violations 

involved, did not warrant dismissal of complaint. (Veterans 

Benefits Office, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 296)

30 16 00

Post-Hearing

A/S will not automatically adopt findings of ALJ, even 

where exceptions are not filed. (VA Hospital, Charleston, 

S.C., A/SLMR No. 87)

Post-hearing motion to amend complaint was granted in 

order to conform complaint to matters fully litigated at 

hearing, but such post-hearing motions will not be granted 

perfunctorily. Granting of such motion is discretionary with 

ALJ and is subject to review by A/S. (Naval Air Reserve 

Training Unit, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 106; EPA, 

Perrine Primate Lab., Florida, A/SLMR No. 136)

As matter of policy, A/S will not overrule ALJ’s credibility resolutions except where preponderance of relevant evidence convinces him that ALJ’s resolutions clearly were incorrect. (Navy Exchange, Naval Air Station, Quonset Point, 

R.L, A/SLMR No. 180; Postal Service, Berwyn Post Office,

111., A/SLMR No. 272)

Formal papers held to be part of record in ULP case 

where ALJ failed to introduce formal papers into record but 

indicated, cwi record, that such documents would be included 

in file and be considered by A/S. (Air Technician Detachment at Dobbins AFB, Ga. and Travis Field, Savannah, 

Ga., A/SLMR No. 182)

A/S found no basis for reversing ALJ’s credibility determinations. (Cal. Nat’l. Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, Cal., A/SLMR No. 348)

A/S relying on ALJ’s credibility resolutions, adopted 

finding that alleged acts of misconduct were not violative of 

EO. (National Park Service, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 

402)

30 20 00

Stipulated Record

Pursuant to Sec. 205.5(a) of Regs., parties may waive 

hearing and submit joint stipulation for A/S decision in unfair labor practice proceeding. (Army Schl. Training Cntr., 

Fort McClellan, Ala., A/SLMR No. 42; Naval Air Rework 

Facility, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR No. 155; HQ. Army 

Aviation Systems Command, Mo., A/SLMR No. 168; Army 

Materiel Command, Automated Logistics Mgt. Systems 

Agency, A/SLMR No. 211)

51
35 04 04

Although the parties stipulated that the only improper 

conduct complained of occurred at two meetings, the ALJ 

found it necessary to consider the events which preceded 

these meetings in order to make a determination. (4392 

Aerospace Support Group, Vandenberg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 350)

30 24 00

Employee Status: Effect on Unfair Labor Practices

Civilian technician with military “supervisory” status 

was not part of agency management or supervisor, and 

Activity is not responsible for his anti-union activities. (Cal. 

Army Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 47)

“Instructors” are not management officials with respect 

to students to whom they give instructions in that there is 

no evidence that instructors formulate, determine or oversee policy. (FAA Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma, Okla., 

A/SLMR No. 117; modified in other respects, FLRC No. 

72A-1)

“Instructors” are not “supervisors” with respect to students 

to whom they give instruction. Criteria set forth in Sec. 

2(c) of EO are not meant to apply to direction, evaluation, 

assignment of work, etc., given by instructor to student, 

where student in his regular work tasks as employee is not 

subject to direction of instructor. (FAA Aeronautical Cntr., 

Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 117)

Motion to dismiss complaint as moot because management official whose conduct was subject of complaint had 

since been transferred denied inasmuch as management official was not acting on individual basis but had function of 

handling labor relations and management is responsible for 

his acts in its behalf. (Dependent Schools, European Area 

(USDESEA) APO, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 138)

Except for limitations specified in Sec. 2(b) of EO, supervisors are not generally excluded from coverage of the EO. 

aRS, Chicago, District, m., A/SLMR No. 279)

Where employee of Employee Appeals Review Board of 

the Navy is found to be Management Representative, his 

involvement in internal elections of a labor organization 

interferes with employee rights assured under EO. (Navy, 

Office of the Sec’y., Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 393)

30 28 00

Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums

Where advisory arbitration award issued prior to A/S 

ULP hearing on same matter, A/S determined issues of 

case, notwithstanding award, where no contention was made 

that: (1) A/S was without jurisdiction, or should decline to 

determine issues raised, because of contractual provisions 

for advisory arbitration; or (2) award should be controlling. 

(Army School/Training Center, Fort Gordon, Ga., A/SLMR 

No. 148)

Question of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (3) interference and improper 

assistance rendered moot where underlying representation 

issue had been resolved, with Complainant being certified as 

exclusive representative of employees involved. (Naval Air 

Rework Facility, Jackonsville, Fla., A/SLMR No. 155)

In rejecting Activity’s argument that no agreement could 

be executed until A/S made determination in related unit 

clarification case, A/S found that where certified unit remained viable and identifiable, Complainant is entitled to

continued recognition and accordingly. Activity’s refusal to 

sign previously agreed upon negotiated agreement was violative of Sec. 19(a)(6). (HQ., Army Aviation Systems Command, Mo., A/SLMR No. 168, FLRC No. 72A-30)

Where complaint involves essentially disagreement over 

interpretation of existing collective bargaining agreement, 

which provides procedure for resolving such disagreement, 

parties should pursue their contractual rather than ULP 

remedies, as indicated in R A/S No. 49. However, no withdrawal of jurisdiction was intended in those situations where 

issue is question of whether party to agreement has given up 

rights granted under EO. (Kennedy Space Center, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 223)

An accretion finding by an ARD in a prior representation 

matter which was accepted by the parties, is binding on the 

parties and not subject to relitigation in a ULP case or any 

subsequent proceeding under the Order, absent newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, or changed 

circumstances not alleged to be present here. (Edgewood 

Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., A/SLMR No. 286)

Where complaint involves dispute over interpretation of 

existing agreement which provides procedure for resolving 

issue, A/S will not determine issue but will leave parties to 

remedies under their agreement. (R A/S No. 49)

30 32 00

Major Policy Issue Raised

A/S found that Respondent’s defense raised major policy

issue of whether applicable laws and regulations, including 

policies set forth in the Federal Personnel Manual, preclude 

the Respondent from disclosing certain relevant and necessary documents to the Complainant in the context of a 

grievance proceeding and referred the issue to the FLRC 

for decision. (DOD, State of N.J., A/SLMR No. 323)

35 00 00

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: AGENCY

35 04 00

General

35 04 04

Guidance or Directives of Civil Service Commission or 

Agency

Activity’s reliance on Civil Service Commission guidance 

and Agency directives does not divest A/S of authority to 

find violation of §ec. 19(a) of EO. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 1)

Contention of CSC, as Intervenor in case, that Sec. 

19(a)(6) was not violated by Activity’s refusal to furnish 

home addresses of unit employees to exclusive representative, 

because Civil Service Regulations, as clarified in Federal 

Personnel Manual, allegedly preclude A/S from ordering 

Respondent to furnish such addresses, not reached for 

consideration by A/S because evidence failed to establish 

violation. However, A/S noted that his decision should not 

be construed to ;nean that he necessarily agrees with contentions of CSC. (IRS, Office of the District Director, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR No. 214)

52
35 08 04

35 04 08

Waiver of Rights Granted by Executive Order

Alleged waiver by union of right to negotiate on establishment of new terms and conditions of employment during 

life of agreement must be clear and unmistakable and will 

not be found merely from fact that agreement omits specific 

reference to right granted by EO, or that union has failed 

in negotiations to obtain protection with respect to certain 

of its rights granted by EO. (Kennedy Space Center, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 223)

Negotiated agreement did not constitute clear and unmistakable waiver of rights or obligations flowing from EO 

Sec. 10(e). (Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky., 

A/SLMR No. 400)

35 04 12

Management Rights

Management rights flowing from Section 12(b) of EO did 

not constitute a bar to finding ULP. (Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard, Wash., A/SLMR No. 332)

35 08 00

Section 19(a)(1)

35 08 04 

Interference

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO by interfering with 

Sec. 1(a) of EO rights of employees by implicitly promising 

grievant employee more favorable and expeditious resolution 

of grievance when grievance procedure under agreement 

between Activity and labor organization is by-passed in favor 

of direct discussions with management. (Army Schl. Training Cntr., Fort McClellan, Ala., A/SLMR No. 42)

Contents of letter from Activity official to President of 

labor organization local criticizing his conduct at grievance 

proceeding and informing him that Activity’s withdrawal 

of reprimand from employee’s record was based on its own 

unilateral decision and not result of grievance proceeding 

does not constitute improper interference with employee 

rights in violation of Sec. 19(a)(1), where there was; (1) no 

threat of penalty or reprisal which might tend to impede 

local President’s future activity as union representative; (2) 

no statement which might interfere with, restrain or coerce 

an employee in the exercise of Sec. 1(a) rights; and (3) no 

evidence that letter’s contents were made public. (Army 

Schl. Training Cntr., Fort McClellan, Ala., A/SLM R No. 

42)

Sec. 19(a)(1) is violated where supervisor posted on employee bulletin board copy of his memorandum to Activity 

head critical of an employee grievant and of labor organization for processing his grievance. Memorandum’s discussion of employee’s moral calibre, arrest record and improper use of sick leave and its criticism of exclusive 

representative labor organization’s leadership for processing 

employee’s grievance, constitutes an inherent interference, 

restraint and coercion of employee rights guaranteed by EO. 

Logical impact of memorandum’s content is to instill in 

employees fear of adverse effects of filing grievances and 

to undermine representative status of labor organization. 

(Ark. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 53)

Activity’s dilatory conduct in connection with processing 

of employee grievances filed pursuant to terms of negotiated 

agreement violated Sec. 19(a)(1). Evidence refuted Activity’s

contention that delay in processing grievances was based on 

“good faith” belief that matters had been resolved. Such 

conduct by Activity found to have inherent effect of interfering with right of employees to utilize negotiated grievance 

procedure. (VA Hospital, Charleston, S.C., A/SLMR No. 87)

Activity’s unilateral change of employment conditions 

violates Sec. 19(a)(1) where action has effect of evidencing 

to employees that Activity can act with respect to negotiated 

terms and conditions of employment without resort to their 

exclusive representative. (VA Hospital, Charleston, S.C., 

A/SLMR No. 87)

Failure to accord continuing appropriate recognition, in 

addition to being a violation of Sec. 19(a)(5) of EO, is also 

an independent violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) because it renders 

meaningless the rights of employees to form, join and assist 

a labor organization and negates the benefits which flow from 

the selection of an exclusive representative. (Naval Air Reserve Training Unit, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 106)

Legitimate union activity by instructors on their own time, 

including membership solicitation of employee students, 

and wearing unobstrusive membership pins bearing no campaign propaganda, whether on working time or not, is not 

in conflict of apparent conflict with instructors’ official duties 

and therefore, not violative of Sec. 1(b) of EO. (FAA Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 117; 

modified FLRC No. 72A-1)

Prohibition on instructors wearing union membership 

buttons during work time violates Sec. 19(a)(1). (FAA 

Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 

117; modified FLRC No. 72A-1)

Activity’s discriminatory and disparate treatment of employee prompted by her activity as President of labor organization, was violative of Sec. 19(a)(1). (EPA, Perrine Primate Lab., Florida, A/SLMR No. 136)

When Agency has been given notice regarding employee 

witnesses requested to participate in formal unit determination proceedings including reasons for their participation, 

where Agency deems such request unreasonable in that it 

exceeds what is “necessary” to proceeding, it should give 

requesting party written notification of decision rejecting 

request and reasons therefor. Such denial may be appealed 

to appropriate ARD prior to hearing, or to HO after opening of hearing, who may deem that disputed witnesses are 

necessary to proceeding and issue Request for Appearance 

of Witnesses. Agency’s refusal to make such necessary witnesses available on official time at formal unit determination 

hearings, including payment of necessary transportation 

and per diem expenses, may be deemed violative of Sec. 

19(a)(1). (Navy Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., York-town, 

Va., A/SLMR No. 139; reversed FLRC No. 72A-20)

Agency’s refusal to grant official time to necessary employee union witnesses at formal unit determination hearing 

inherently interfered with, restrained or coerced employees 

in exercise of rights assured by Sec. 1(a) of EO in violation 

of Sec. 19(a)(1), without requiring proof of anti-union 

motivation. (Navy Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No. 139; reversed FLRC No. 72A-20)

Agency not obligated to make available on official time 

employees who appear solely as union representatives but 

not as witnesses at formal unit determination hearing. (Navy 

Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR 

No. 139; reversed FLRC No. 72A-20)

53
35 08 04

Activity’s unilateral cancellation of arbitration proceeding, ^ 

scheduled pursuant to negotiated agreement, without consulting exclusive representative, was violative of Sec. 19

(a)(1). (Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Cal., A/SLMR No. 154)

Agency directive which can be construed as following 

extension of agreement prior to expiration of such agreement, while awaiting resolution of representation question, 

is not violative of either Sec. 19(a)(1) or (3). (Naval Air 

Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR No. 155)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) by Headquarters 

approval of locally executed agreement with exclusive representative where, during pendency of Headquarters review, 

but subsequent to local execution of agreement, majority of 

employees signed petition opposing representation by incumbent. (FAA, Jacksonville ATC Center and Fed. Aviation 

Science and Tech. Assoc., NAGE, Local R5-20, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 194)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) when it negotiated 

and executed agreement with exclusive representative at time 

when sole challenge to incumbent union’s majority status 

was individual employee’s bare claim, without further proof 

or documentation, that unit employees opposed representation by incumbent. (FAA, Jacksonville, ATC Center and 

Fed. Aviation Science and Tech. Assoc., NAGE, Local 

R5-20, Fla., A/SLMR No. 194)

Activity official’s remark to union steward at meeting, in 

presence of another employee, to shut her mouth unless 

spoken to, found to restrain employees, such as steward, 

from exercising their right to act as representatives of union. 

Remark further indicated to unit employees that management viewed their exclusive bargaining representative with 

disdain and thereby discouraged them from exercising their 

Sec. 1(a) rights. (Army Training Center, Infantry, Laundry 

Facility, Ft. Jackson, S.C., A/SLMR No. 242)

Agency violated Sec. 19(a)(1) by refusal to grant official 

time status to employee who participated at unit determination hearing as witness. (Reserve Command HQ., Camp 

McCoy, Sparta, Wise., 102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, 

Mo., A/SLMR No. 256; reversed FLRC No. 73A-18)

Activity did not commit ULP by refusal to pay per diem 

and travel expenses to employees acting as union representatives at preelection meeting, because under circumstances 

of this case, such employees were considered to be engaged 

in union business. (Customs Service, Region IX, Chicago,

III., A/SLMR No. 257)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) where supervisor inserted 

the remark, “active in the union” in an appraisal form which 

was to be circulated among other activities of the Agency, 

together with employee’s application for a position with the 

other activities. (Western Division of Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, Calif., A/SLMR No. 264)

A/S found, contrary to ALJ, that issue in instant complaint was subject to an established grievance procedure 

under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement; that under 

Sec. 19(d) of EO, prior to its amendment, when an alleged 

violation of Sec. 19(a)(1), (2), or (4) was subject to an established appeals procedure, that procedure was the “exclusive 

procedure” available and the A/S had no authority to review 

whether such procedure was properly applied to the Complainant. (Postal Service, Berwyn Post Office, 111., A/SLMR 

No. 272)

No violation found where Respondent granted a union, 

which had filed a petition that was pending, rights to post 

campaign material on the ResJ)ondent’s b u l l e t i n boards because question concerning representation was raised by the 

filing of the petition thereby placing such union in “equal 

status” with the exclusive representative, the Complainant. 

(FAA, Eastern. Region, Boston ARTCC, Nashua, N.H., 

A/SLMR No. 273)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) by virtue of its denial of 

an employee’s request to be represented at a formal discussion relating to matters affecting general working conditions 

by his chosen representative on the theory that the right 

conferred on an exclusive representative to be represented 

at “formal” discussions under Sec. 10(e) establishes a concomitant right running to all employees in a unit, i.e., labor 

organjzation’s responsibility to represent the interests of all 

employees in the unit. A/S found that this obligation could 

not be met if agencies were permitted to thwart the exclusive 

representative’s obligation to represent the interests of all 

employees in the unit by refusing to permit the employee to 

choose the exclusive representative as their representative. 

(Army, Transportation Motor Pool, Fort Wainwright, 

Alaska, A/SLMR No. 278)

A/S disagrees with ALJ finding that Sec. 7(d)(1) of the 

Order confers a specific right on employees, regardless of 

whether they are represented in a unit of exclusive recognition, to choose their own representative in a grievance or 

appellate action. A/S finds that Sec. 7(d) does not establish 

any rights for employees, organizations or associations enforceable under Sec. 19 of the Order, but delineates 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 

Sec. 19 of EO. (Army, Transportation Motor Pool, Fort 

Wainwright, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 278)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) by its refusal to 

permit supervisors to be represented in grievance or appellate action by representative of labor organization that 

represents employees supervised by the supervisor. A/S 

found that although supervisors are not excluded from coverage under EO, Sec. 7(d)(1) does not confer rights upon 

supervisors enforceable under Sec. 19(a). A/S further held 

that Sec. 10(d) rights do not flow to supervisors. (IRS, 

Chicago District, 111., A/SLMR No. 279; IRS, Western 

Service Center, Ogden, Utah, A/SLMR No. 280)

Agency’s refusal to maintain on official time an employee 

who appeared solely as a representative of a labor organization at a formal unit determination hearing was not violative 

of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO. (Army, Electronics Command, Fort 

Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 281)

Allegation dismissed where violation was based solely on 

Activity’s refusal to accord recognition or to consult and 

confer where there was no obligation to do so absent an 

accretion or addition. (Nat’l. Oceanic & Atmospheric Adm., 

Wash., D.C, A/SLMR No. 285)

Activity’s termination of dues-withholding did not violate 

Order as the action was justified, as found in prior representation case, that reorganization removed affected employees 

from exclusively represented unit. (Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., A/SLMR No. 286)

54
35 08 04

Activity’s refusal to refer dispute to advisory arbitration 

under existing agreement interferes with the exercise of rights 

assured by the Order. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Va., 

A/SLMR No. 290)

A/S remanded certain allegations contained in complaint 

to A U for further hearing in view of j\L J ’s erroneous and 

prejudicial rulings. (NLRB, Region 17, and NLRB, K.C., 

Mo., A/SLMR No. 295)

While Sec. 1(a) of the Order does not specifically include 

“concerted” activity as a protected right, A/S held that an 

action by an agency or activity to discourage or interfere 

with an employee’s filing of grievances pursuant to a negotiated agreement, would be inherently destructive of rights 

assured under Section 1(a). (NLRB, Region 17, and NLRB, 

K.C., Mo., A/SLMR No. 295)

Alleged violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) dismissed where ALJ 

found the Complainant unable to sustain his burden of proof 

that union officer’s termination was pretextual and not for 

insubordination in connection with an unauthorized union 

meeting during working hours. (Veterans Benefits Office, 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 296)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO by dealing directly 

with unit employee representatives of the Youth Advisory 

Committee (YAC) at various management staff committees 

of Respondent Activity where personnel policies and practices were discussed and thus undermining employee’s Sec. 

1(a) rights and by-passing the employees’ exclusive representative. (VA Hospital, Muskogee, Okla., A/SLMR No. 301)

A/S found Activity’s conduct in not permitting the individual requested by Complainants to represent them at their 

separate investigative discussions not to be improper in that 

the individual involved had been discharged and was not an 

“employee” within the meaning of the parties’ negotiated 

agreement at the time of the investigative discussions. 

(Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 304)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 73A-18, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A/SLM R No. 256 and concluded that Agency 

refusal to grant official time to union witnesses for participation at formal unit determination hearing was not violative 

of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO. (Reserve Command HQ., Camp 

McCoy, Sparta, Wise., 102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, 

Mo., A/SLMR No. 306)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 72A-20, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A/SLM R No. 139 and concluded that Agency 

refusal to grant official time to union witnesses for participation at formal unit determination hearing was not violative 

of Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO. (Navy Dept., Naval Weapons Sta., 

Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No. 307)

The A/S found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Respondent denied permission to an employee 

to take annual leave in order to participate pursuant to the 

Decision on Appeal of the Federal Labor Relations Council 

(Council) in Department of the Navy, and the U.S. Naval

Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia, A/SLMR No. 139, 

FLRC No. 72A-20, that further proceedings under Sec. 

19(a) of the Order were unwarranted. (IRS, Fresno, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 309)

In view of FLRC’s decision to set aside A/S findings of 

violation in A/SLM R Nos. 139 and 256, A/S dismissed in 

its entirety complaint in case A/SLMR No. 281 concerning 

refusal to make available on official time necessary witnesses

at formal unit determination hearings. (Army Electronics 

Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 320)

Activity violated the Order when it unilaterally changed 

the policy with respect to the granting of annual leave during 

the period of route inspection as such action had the effect 

of evidencing to employees that the Activity can alter terms 

and conditions of employment without regard to either the 

exclusive representative or the Section 1(a) rights of employees. (Anaheim Post Office, Cal., A/SLMR No. 324)

Activity violated the Order where it (1) improperly failed 

to meet and confer concerning procedures to be followed 

in selecting employees for reassignment and (2) did not 

afford exclusive representative an opportunity to meet and 

confer over the impact of its decision on those employees 

adversely affected by the reassignment. (FAA, Nat’l. Aviation 

Facilities Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A SLMR 

No. 329)

Agency’s unilateral determination of grievability found to 

be violation of Sec. 19(a)(1). (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 

Wash., A/SLMR No. 334; Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Va., 

A/SLMR No. 290; Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Cal, 

A/SLMR No. 154)

Respondent’s failure to process grievances under a grievance procedure unilaterally established by agency did not 

constitute violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) as the failure to do so 

cannot be said to interfere with any rights assured under the

Order. A/S noted policing and enforcing of agency grievance 

procedure was responsibility of agency involved and U.S. 

Civil Service Commission. Veterans Administration Hospital,

Charleston, South Carolina, A/SLMR No. 87 and Long

Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California, A/SLMR 

No. 154, distinguished as those cases involved a failure to 

apply the terms and conditions of a negotiated grievance 

procedure and the finding of violations of Sec. 19(a)(1) were 

premised on the fact that the Activity had interferred with 

employee rights secured by their exclusive bargaining representatives through the process of negotiations. (OEO, Region 

V, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 334)

Complainant failed to prove allegation that employee was 

denied outstanding performance rating and quality increase 

because of union activities. (OEO, Region V, Chicago, 111., 

A/SLMR No. 334)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) by virtue of its 

denial of an employee’s request to be represented at “counselling sessions” concerning employee’s conduct, because such 

sessions were not “formal discussions’ within meaning of 

Sec. 10(e). (Texas Air National Guard, A/SLMR No. 336)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) by virtue of the 

National Office promulgation of the new and expanded 

Indian Preference Policy, in derogation of the rights on 

non-Indian employees, as the promulgation of the new policy 

was not an act of the Respondent nor an act over which 

Respondent had control. Furthermore, the mere announcement of the policy did not interfere with, restrain or coerce 

any employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the 

Order. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, N.M., 

A/SLMR No. 341)

Respondent violated the Order as its improper refusal to 

meet and confer with Complainant necessarily had a restraining influence upon the unit employees and had a concomitant, 

coercive effect upon their rights assured by the Order. 

(Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR 

No. 341)

55
35 08 04

Complainant did not meet its burden of proving^ that 

statements made by supervisor were retaliatory or were 

reprisals against employees having engaged in Sec. 1(a) 

activities or that any acts on the part of the supervisor involved resulted in a threat to the employees or caused 

Respondent to interfere with, restrain, coerce or discriminate 

against employees in violation of the Order. (Air Force, 

Keesler Tech. Training Cntr., Keesler AFB, Miss., A/SLMR 

No. 343)

Activity violated the Order by unilaterally changing an 

agreed-upon term and condition of employment. (Cal. Nat’l. 

Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 348)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) where evidence established 

that warning letters were issued to an employee in reprisal 

for his filing of a contractual grievance. (Cal. Nat’l. Guard, 

State Military Forces, Sacramento, Cal., A/SLMR No. 348)

Failure of the Activity to acknowledge publicly representatives of the Complainant labor organization in attendance at 

meetings with employees or mention their availability for 

assistance during a forthcoming RIF, was not conduct which 

affected the exercise by the employees of their rights under 

the Order when the purpose of the meetings was to announce 

the number of positions affected and to explain proposed, 

rather than finalized, procedures for implementing the RIF, 

and those procedures had been subject to prior discussions 

between the Activity and the Complainant. (4392 Aerospace 

Support Group, Vandenberg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No. 350)

Foreman’s admonishment to employee referred to employee’s leaving the job during working hours and not to 

his seeking a union steward on his own time. Such warning 

was not an infringement upon the employee’s rights under 

the Order as it constituted a legitimate restriction of an 

employee to his work station during working hours. (Long 

Beach Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 352)

Following reorganization. Activity’s threat to terminate 

dues withholding six months after the date of unit employees 

administrative transfer to Activity if no representation petition was filed constituted violation of Order. (DSA, Defense 

Property Disposal Off., Aberdeen, Md., A/SLMR No. 360)

Activity requirement that a shop steward must resign 

that position for the period he would serve as supervisor does 

not interfere with his rights assured by the Order. (Warner 

Robins Air Materiel Area, Robins AFB, Ga., A/SLMR 

No. 365)

Activity found not to have violated Order by assigning 

an employee to undesirable work hours and terminating her 

where the evidence failed to establish either that the employee was a victim of disparate treatment or that there was 

any causal relation between her union activities and the 

Activity’s decision to change her work hours and to subsequently terminate her. (Army & AF Exchange Service, 

Vandenberg AFB Exchange, Cal., A/SLMR No. 366)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) where, in rejecting 

an unfair labor practice charge filed by labor organization, it 

raised a question as to whether a representative of another 

organization had been designated as agent with respect to' 

the charge, and, upon being advised that the representative 

was indeed the agent, it met and sought to resolve informally 

the unfair labor practice charge within the 30-day period 

provided for in the Regs. (Army Missile Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 367)

Activity found not to have violated the Order by terminating Complainant where evidence showed that his work was 

unsatisfactory as alleged by the Activity, and Complainant 

failed to establish any relationship between his termination 

and his union activities. (Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 373)

Activity did not violate the Order by requiring a shop 

steward to obtain an administrative permit in order to enter 

a work section within the Activity’s security control area. 

(Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, Robins AFB, Georgia, 

A/SLMR No. 374)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) by its assignment 

of a GS-5 employee to fill temporarily a GS-9 journeyman 

position. (FAA, ATC, Anchorage, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 

379)

Threat by management official to recommend to Commanding Officer of Activity that he discontinue dues withholding agreement in effect between Respondent ond Complainant held to constitute interference, restraint and coercion of employees.

Threat by management official to cancel the vacation of 

Complainant’s president held not violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) 

where threat was immediately withdrawn, and president 

thereafter was allowed to take his vacation as planned. 

(Army Natick Lab., Natick, Mass., A/SLMR No. 381)

Supervisor’s interrogation of employees with regard to 

their union affiliation, as well as his remarks reflecting disdain for and disparagement of the exclusive representative, 

constituted interference, restraint or coercion in violation of 

EO. (Vandenberg AFB, Cal, A/SLMR No. 383)

Respondent’s reference to supervisors’ handbook in discussion of employee’s complaint with employee, did not 

interfere with employee rights because evidence established 

that reference was only a basis for explaining objection to 

presence of Complainant’s president instead of designated 

steward, as provided for in parties’ negotiated agreement. 

(Vandenberg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No. 383)

Respondent’s failure to meet and confer with the employee’s exclusive representative prior to the issuance of a 

questionnaire to employees had a restraining influence upon 

unit employees and had a concomitant coercive effect upon 

their rights assured by the Order. (Wadsworth Hospital 

Cntr., L.A., Cal., A/SLMR No. 388)

Activity interfered with Sec. 1(a) rights by involvement 

of management representative in internal elections of labor 

organization. (Navy, Office of the Sec’y., Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 393)

Activity committed violation by demeaning and disparaging the exclusive representative by supervisor’s improper 

statements to two officials of the exclusive representative to 

the effect that Activity would allow employee to select 

representative in proposed adverse action situation but would 

not recognize such representative if he also represents the 

employee as an official of the exclusive representative. 

(Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky., A/SLMR No. 400)

Respondent’s action in establishing new competitive areas 

during the pendency of its RA petition when there was no 

overriding exigency which required immediate action, improperly interfered with its employees’ rights as the petitioning agency has an obligation during this period to remain 

neutral and maintain the status quo with respect to personnel 

policies, practices and matters affecting the working condi56
35 08 12

tions of employees covered by the RA petition. (Bureau of 

Reclamation, Yuma, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 401)

Activity’s treatment of employee, insofar as job assignments concerned, did not constitute harassment and intimidation in violation of Order, where alleged lack of rotation 

among jobs was fully explained by physical restrictions 

imposed on employee by herself and her doctors. (National 

Park Service, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 402)

A/S affirmed ALJ finding that Activity did not commit 

ULP by not granting official time to a steward in order to 

investigate ULP charges and requiring steward to take annual 

leave. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C.,- A/SLMR No. 403)

A/S affirmed ALJ finding that Activity did not commit 

ULP by not allowing employee to have steward represent 

him at investigative discussion. ALJ found, consistent with 

Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Texas Air

National Guard, A/SLMR No. 336, that the exclusive 

representative had no right under EO, Sec. 10(e) to be present 

at a discussion which was informal in nature and involved 

merely the alleged shortcomings peculiar to the employee 

and not general working conditions. Further, ALJ found 

that EO, Sec. 7(d) confers no rights upon employees, organizations, or associations enforceable under EO, Sec. 19, but 

merely delineates those instances in which employees may 

choose a representative other than their exclusive representative in certain grievance and appellate actions. (Charleston 

Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 403)

Respondent Activity did not deny union representation to 

employee by refusing to allow two fellow employees who 

held no union office to be present as witnesses when two of 

the Respondent’s supervisors attempted to serve two notices 

of infraction upon the employee. (GSA, Region 6, PBS, 

K.C., Mo., A/SLMR No. 404)

Denial of access to Activity work areas to non-employees 

for electioneering, impartially applied to all unions, is not 

ULP, since there is no obligation for Activity to grant such 

access. (R A/S No. 23)

35 08 08

Distribution of Literature

Prohibition of employee distribution of union literature 

on Activity premises in nonwork areas during nonwork time 

violates Sec. 19(a)(1), absent special circumstances. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 1)

Distribution of anti-union literature by civilian technician 

prior to representation election in unit of Army National 

Guard technicians did not interfere with, restraint, or coerce 

other unit employees in exercise of rights under EO where: 

(1) employee who distributed the literature has no supervisory authority as civilian employee; (2) although the employee also holds military noncommissioned rank and 

“supervisory authority” in Army National Guard, this is not 

sufficient to make him part of agency management or supervisor within unit, or to render Army National Guard responsible for his anti-union activities; and, (3) Army National 

Guard did not assist or encourage employee in distributing 

anti-union literature or in any way ratify such action. (Cal. 

Army Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 47)

Use of Activity bulletin board for labor organization 

materials is a privilege, which may be granted subject to 

reasonable conditions, or withheld. However, where Respondent goes beyond its previously established reasonable

standards and censors material based on standards not

previously announced, Sec. 19(a)(1) is violated. (L.A. ATC 

Cntr., Calif., A/SLMR No. 283)

Although the use of reading binders for labor organization 

materials is a privilege and not a protected form of distribution for communication in the tradition sense, Sec. 19(a)(1) 

was violated when the Respondent ignored its own reasonable rules and instead used standards different from those 

it had published in determining whether certain items might 

be placed in the binders. (L.A. ATC Cntr., Calif., A/SLMR 

No. 283)

Materials placed on distribution tables by labor organizations with permission of Activity are found to be akin to 

traditional, protected distribution material. As such, they are 

entitled to protection similar to that given to material distributed by employees in nonwork areas during nonwork time, 

and censorship of such material is violative of Sec. 19(a)(1). 

(L.A. LTC Cntr., Calif., A/SLMR No. 283)

A/S adopted ALJ finding of no violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) 

where: (1) record did not establish that Respondent authorized, approved, knew in advance, or in any way was 

responsible for the few isolated incidents where labor organization “A” newspapers were found in labor organization 

“B” exclusive areas; and (2) given no disagreement by the 

parties over the general terms of the Respondent’s distribution policy, the Respondent properly applied its general 

policy which was not under attack, limiting the distribution 

of a labor organization’s literature to those areas where the 

employees are exclusively represented by that labor organization. (Norton AFB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 337)

Prohibition of access to Respondent’s premises by nonemployee representative of Complainant does not violate 

Sec. 19(a)(1) where there is no showing of any difference in 

treatment to incumbent labor organization and no diligent 

or unsuccessful efforts were made by Complainant to contact employees away from Respondent’s premises. (Tenn. 

Air Nat’l. Guard, Nashville, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 355)

35 08 12

Solicitation

Prohibition of employee solicitation on behalf of union 

during nonwork time violates Sec. 19(a)(1), absent special 

circumstances. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR 

No. 1)

FLRC set aside the decision of A/S in A/SLM R No. 117

and remanded case to A/S for appropriate action based on 

its finding that promulgating and maintaining order prohibiting Respondent’s instructors from soliciting students in 

behalf of union does not violate Sec. 19(a)(1). (FLRC No. 

72A-1)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 72A-1, A/S reversed previous 

finding in A/SLM R No. 117 (A/SLMR No. 253)

A/S original holding in A/SLM R No. 117 was that promulgating and maintaining order prohibiting Respondent’s 

instructors from soliciting students in behalf of union violates 

Sec. 19(a)(1). (FAA Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, 

Okla., ASLMR No. 117)

Activity interfered with employee rights in violation of 

Sec. 19(a)(1) by permitting nonintervening union use of its 

facilities for solicitation purposes among Activity’s employees 

covered by Complainant’s pending representation petition. 

Subsequent dismissal of Complainant’s petition is not deter57
35 12 00

minative. (DSA, DCASR, Burlingame, Calif., A/SLMR 

No. 247)

After warning, employee’s continued violation of Sec. 20 

of EO, by soliciting for union membership during duty 

hours, constituted just cause for discharge. (Veterans Benefits 

Office, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 296)

35 12 00

Section 19(a)(2)

Sec. 19(a)(2) complaint dismissed where no evidence was 

presented which conceivably could constitute discrimination 

in regard to hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions 

of employment. (Cal. Army Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 47)

Sec. 19(a)(2) complaint dismissed where Complainant 

failed to estabUsh by preponderance of evidence that his 

non-selection for position was discriminatory in order to 

encourage or discourage membership in labor organization. 

(FAA, Houston Area Office, SW Region, Houston, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 126)

Activity’s discrimination against employee by withholding 

3 hours pay and issuing low performance appraisal, prompted 

by her activities as President of labor organization, inherently 

would tend to discourage membership in labor organization 

and, in such circumstances, proof of actual discouragement 

is not required for finding of .violation of Sec. 19(a)(2). 

(EPA, Perrine Primate Lab., Florida, A/SLMR No. 136)

Although violating Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO, Agency did not 

also violate Sec. 19(a)(2) by refusing to grant official time to , 

employee union witnesses to participate in formal unit determination hearing inasmuch as Agency’s conduct did not 

encourage or discourage membership in labor organization. 

(Navy Dept., Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR 

No. 139, reversed FLRC No. 72A-20)

Evidence insufficient to establish that Activity’s unilateral 

cancellation of arbitration proceeding encouraged or discouraged membership in labor organization in violation of 

Sec. 19(a)(2). (Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 154)

A/S adopted ALJ’s finding that Complainant failed to 

meet burden of proof that Respondent’s actions were 

prompted by Complainant’s union membership or activities. 

(2024th Communications Squadron, Moody Air Force Base, 

Ga., A/SLMR No. 248)

Activity found not to have violated Sec. 19(a)(2) where 

evidence failed to establish that the two alleged discriminatees 

were not hired for union or other discriminatory considerations. (Western Division of Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, San Bruno, Cal., A/SLMR No. 264)

Activity’s termination of dues withholding did not violate 

Order as the action was justified by reorganization which in 

prior representation case it was found that affected employees removed from exclusively represented unit. (Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., A/SLMR 

No. 286)

Alleged violation of Sec. 19(a)(2) dismissed where ALJ 

found the Complainant unable to sustain his burden of proof 

that discharge was based on protected union activity and 

not insubordination. (Veterans Benefits Office, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 296)

A/S found that the evidence was insufficient to establish 

that the Respondent denied permission tq an employee to 

take annual leave in order to participate as an observer at 

a representation election. (IRS, Fresno, Cal., A/SLMR No. 

309)

A/S found no violation of Sec. 19(a)(2) in the absence 

of evidence that the failure by Respondent to properly 

apply the terms and conditions of a grievance procedure 

established by the agency itself resulted from discriminatory 

motivation or disparity of treatment based on union membership considerations. (OEO, Region V, Chicago, III., A/SLMR 

No. 334)

Complainant failed to prove allegation that employee was 

denied outstanding performance rating and quality increase 

because of union activities. (OEO, Region V, Chicago, III, 

A/SLMR No. 334)

Activity found not to have violated Sec. 19(a)(2) by failing to permit employee’s military reenlistment, and by subsequently discharging him from civilian employment. (Texas 

Air National Guard, A/SLMR No. 336)

Although there was discrimination against non-Indian 

employees in regard to promotion and other conditions of 

employment as a result of the new National Office Indian 

Preference Policy, Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(2) 

as such discrimination was not an act over which Respondent 

Activity had control and had no relationship to union status 

or union activities. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, 

N.M., A/SLMR No. 341)

A/S dismissed allegation where ALJ inadvertently failed 

to rule on whether Respondent violated the Order by issuing 

certain warnings. (Cal. Nat’l. Guard, State Military Forces, 

Sacramento, Cal., A/SLMR No. 348)

A /S found insufficient evidence to establish that Activity’s 

refusal to reenlist an employee in National Guard was in 

reprisal for his utilization of procedures protected by the 

Order. (Cal. Nat’l. Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, Cal., A/SLMR No. 348)

Failure of the Activity to acknowledge publicily representatives of Complainant labor organization in attendance at 

meetings with employees or mention their availability for 

assistance during a forthcoming RIF was not conduct which 

tended to discourage membership in the Complainant when 

the purpose of the meetings was to announce the number 

of positions affected and explain proposed, rather than 

finalized, procedures for implementing the RIF, and those 

procedures had been subject to prior discussions between 

the Activity and the Complainant. (4392 Aerospace Support 

Group, Vandenberg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No. 350)

Allegation dismissed in absence of any evidence of discriminatory motivation. (DSA, Defense Property Disposal 

Off., Aberdeen, Md., A/SLMR No. 360)

Activity requirement that to be detailed or act as a 

supervisor, a shop steward must resign from that position 

for the period he is to serve as supervisor, is not discriminatory, but rather, tends to avoid a conflict of interest 

which would put him in a position where he could not perform either responsibility properly. (Warner Robins Air 

Material Area, Robins AFB, Ga., A/SLMR No. 365)

Respondent’s supervisor had not issued directives to employee because of her union activities or her association with

58
35 24 00

the Complainant’s president. (Vandenberg AFB, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 383)

Allegations that Activity improperly withdrew offer of 

promotion dismissed where ALT found that, even if Activity 

had offered and then withheld promotion, evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of the Order. (National 

Park Service, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 402)

35 16 00

Section 19(a)(3)

Agency directive which can be construed as allowing extension of agreement prior to expiration of such agreement, 

while awaiting resolution of representation question, is not 

violative of either Sec. 19(a)(1) or (3). (Naval Air Rework 

Facility, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR No. 155)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(3) when it negotiated 

and executed agreement with exclusive representative at 

time when sole challenge to incumbent union’s majority 

status was individual employee’s bare claim, without further 

proof or documentation, that unit employees opposed representation by incumbent. (FAA, Jacksonville ATC Center 

and Fed. Aviation Science and Tech. Assoc., NAGE Local 

R5-20, Fla., A/SLMR No. 194)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(3) by Headquarters 

approval of locally executed agreement with exclusive representative where, during pendency of Headquarters review, 

but subsequent to local execution of agreement, majority of 

employees signed petition opposing representation by incumbent. (FAA, Jacksonville, ATC Center and Fed. Aviation 

Science and Tech. Assoc., NAGE Local R5-20, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 194)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(3) of EO by permitting nonintervening union use of its facilities for solicitation purposes 

while Complainant’s representatition petition was pending. 

Subsequent dismissal of Complainant’s petition is not determinative. (DSA, DCASR, Burlingame, Cal., A/SLMR No. 

247)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(3) by granting employee 

representatives of labor organization, not having equivalent 

status to that of the exclusive representative, use of activity 

services and facilities for purpose of conducting organizational drive when it did not prove special circumstances 

which would warrant such treatment. (Army Natick Lab, 

Natick, Mass., A/SLMR No. 263)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(3) by conduct of its supervisor, 

in posting literature of outside labor organization on bulletin 

board, at a time when such labor organization did not have 

equivalent status to that of Complainant exclusive representative. (Army Natick Lab, Natick, Mass., A/SLMR No. 263)

No violation found where Respondent granted a labor 

organization, which had filed a petition that was pending, 

right to post campaign material on the Respondent’s bulletin 

boards because question concerning representation was 

raised by the filing of the petition thereby placing such 

labor organization in “equal status” with the Complainant 

exclusive representative. (FAA, Eastern Region, Boston 

ARTCC, Nashua, N.H., A/SLMR No. 273)

Complainant did not meet its burden of proof that Activity 

violated Sec. 19(a)(3) of EO as evidence did not disclose that 

agency management distributed or permitted distribution of 

Intervener’s bullentins. (FAA, Atlanta TAC Tower, Ga., 

A/SLMR No. 300)

A/S adopted ALJ finding that the inclusion in the 

Respondent’s official house organ of an article written by 

a supervisor about a professional organization was not violative of EO, as Complainant is a professional association and 

not a labor organization and there is nothing in the Order 

which prohibits the Respondent from encouraging membership in a professional organization. (FAA, K.C. Air Route 

Control Cntr., Olathe, Kan., A/SLMR No. 353)

Activity violated the Order by virtue of conduct of employee found to be management representative who issued 

a memorandum in support of candidate in union election. 

(Navy, Office of the Sec’y., Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 393)

35 20 00

Section 19(a)(4)

Agency’s remedial action, prior to complaint hearing, 

restoring deducted annual leave to employee union witnesses 

who previously had been refused official time for participation in formal unit determination hearings, negates need for 

any A/S “make whole” order, and renders moot question 

of whether such witnesses suffered disparate treatment compared with those who appeared on behalf of Agency. (Navy 

Dept, Naval Weapons Sta.', Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No. 

139; reversed FLRC No. 72A-20)

Agency refusal to permit necessary employee union witnesses to testify at formal unit determination hearings on 

official time, including payment of any necessary transportation and per diem expenses, may be considered violative 

of Sec. 19(a)(4). (Navy Dept, Naval Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No. 139; reversed FLRC No. 72A-20)

A/S accepted ALJ’s finding that Complainant failed to 

meet burden of proof that Respondent’s actions were 

prompted by Complainant’s previous filing of complaint 

under EO. (2024th Communications Squadron, Moody Air 

Force Base, Ga., A/SLMR No. 248)

A/S found insufficient evidence to establish that Activity’s 

refusal to reenlist an employee in National Guard was in 

reprisal for his utilization of procedures protected by the 

Order. (Cal. Nat’l. Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 348)

35 24 00

Section 19(a)(5)

Activity’s actions with respect to conduct of bargaining 

relationship, while violative of other Secs, of EO, did not 

violate Sec. 19(a)(5), since that provision relates to grant 

of appropriate recognition. (Army Schl. Training Cntr., 

Fort McClellan, Ala., A/SLMR No. 42)

Command reorganization by Navy, where unit is reduced 

in size but remains identifiable and viable, does not involve 

private sector “successorship” doctrine, since unit changes 

do not warrant conclusion that “employing industry” did not 

continue after reorganization. (Naval Air Reserve Training 

Unit, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 106)

Sec. 19(a)(5) obligation to accord recognition includes 

requirement to continue to accord such recognition as long 

as labor organization remains qualified for such recognition 

under provisions of EO. (Naval Air Reserve Training Unit, 

Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 106)

Diminution of bargaining unit is not, in and of itself, 

valid ground for withdrawing recognition. Where bargaining 

unit remains viable and essentially same, even though sub59
35 28 04

stantially reduced, unilateral withdrawal of recognition from 

exclusive representative constitutes violation of Sec. 19(a)(5). 

(Naval Air Reserve Training Unit, Memphis, Tenn., 

A/SLMR No. 106)

Sec. 19(a)(5) allegation of refusal to accord recognition 

dismissed where sole contention and evidence is that head 

of subordinate facility was designated to negotiate agreement directly on behalf of Activity rather than, as in original 

letter of recognition and in previous agreements, merely as 

representative of the Director of Activity. (Dependent 

Schools, European Area (USDESEA) APO, N.Y., A/ 

SLMR No. 138)

Evidence insufficient to establish that Activity’s unilateral 

cancellation of arbitration proceeding was violative of Sec. 

19(a)(5) obligation to accord recognition to Complainant. 

(Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Cal, A/SLMR No. 154)

Allegation of refusal to accord recognition dismissed 

where evidence did not establish in reorganization situation 

that employees sought were an accretion or addition to the 

existing unit. (Nat’l. Oceanic & Atmospheric Adm., Wash., 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 285)

Activity’s termination of dues withholding did not violate 

Order as the action was justified by reorganization which, as 

found in prior representation case, removed affected employees from exclusively represented unit. (Edgewood 

Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., A/SLMR No.

186)

Activity’s conduct, while violative of other sections of 

EO, did not violate Sec. 19(a)(5), because it did not constitute a refusal to accord appropriate recognition. (FAA, 

Nat’l. Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, 

N.J., A/SLMR No. 329)

Failure of the Activity to acknowledge publicly representatives of the Complainant labor organization in attendance 

at meetings with employees or mention their availability 

for assistance during a forthcoming RIF did not constitute 

refusal to accord appropriate recognition when the purpose 

of the meetings was to announce the number of positions 

affected and explain proposed, rather than finalized, procedures for implementing the RIF, and those procedures had 

been subject to prior discussions between the Activity and 

the Complainant. (4392 Aerospace Support Group, Vanden- 

^ berg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No. 350)

A/S adopted ALJ finding that the inclusion in the Respondent’s official house organ of an article written by a supervisor about a professional organization was not violative of 

EO, as ACTA is a professional association and not a labor 

organization and there is nothing in the Order which 

prohibits the Respondent from encouraging membership in 

a professional organization. (FAA, K.C. Air Route Control 

Cntr., Olathe, Kan., A/SLMR No. 353)

Where employees continued to remain in the exclusively 

recognized unit. Respondent, as a co-employer of employees, 

was obligated to continue to honor the existing negotiated 

agreement between labor organization and previous Activity. 

Where agreement pertained to transferred employees, improper withdrawal of recognition in derogation of obligation 

“to accord appropriate recognition to a labor organization 

qualified for such recognition” violated Order. (DSA, Defense Property Disposal Off., Aberdeen, Md., A/SLMR 

No. 360)

Obligation to accord recognition includes requirement to 

continue to accord such recognition as long as labor organization remains qualified for such recognition under provisions of EO. (DSA, Defense Property Disposal Off., 

Aberdeen, Md., A/SLMR No. 360)

Activity’s refusal to recognize exclxisive representative as 

representative of classificatidn of Progressmen was not violation because Progressmen were found to be supervisors 

within meaning of EO Sec. 2(c). (Naval Ordnance Station, 

Louisville, Ky., A/SLMR No. 400)

A/S adopted ALJ’s finding that evidence did not establish 

that Activity had refused to accord proper recognition to 

union. (Metallurgy Research'Ctr., Bureau of Mines, Albany, 

Ore., A/SLMR No. 408)

35 28 00

Section 19(a)(6)

35 28 04

Response to Bargaining Request

In meetings with employees at which the Activity explained 

proposed, rather than finalized, procedures for implementing 

a forthcoming RIF and announced the number of positions 

to be affected, the Activity’s failure to acknowledge publicly 

representatives of the Complainant labor organization in 

attendance and to mention their availability for assistance 

during the RIF, was found not to be a refusal to meet and 

confer in violation of Sec. 19(a)(6), where the procedures 

had been subject to prior discussions with the C9mplainant 

and there was no request by the Complainant’s representatives for any type of consultation during the course of the 

meetings. (4392d Aerospace Support Group, Vandenberg 

AFB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 350)

Allegation that Activity failed to meet and confer regarding the assignment of a GS—5 employee to fill temporarily 

a GS-9 journeyman position dismissed where Activity was 

obligated to meet and confer only regarding the impact of 

its decision and the procedures involved but was relieved 

of this obligation by the failure of Complainant to request 

to meet and confer after proper notification of the decision. 

(FAA, ATC, Anchorage, !\laska, A/SLMR No. 379)

Activity did not violate the Order: (1) where there was 

no evidence that the Activity refused to confer in good 

faith with regard to negotiable items relating to the payment 

of environmental differential pay; (2) where request for 

information was not particularized; and (3) evidence did not 

establish that the information requested was necessary for 

the Complainant to function intelligently as the exclusive 

bargaining representative. (HQ., 438th Air Base Group, McGuire AFB, N.J., A/SLMR No. 384)

Activity did not violate obligation to meet and confer 

with respect to planning and announcement of impending 

reduction-in-force and failure to furnish relevant information in that regard inasmuch as; (1) 9 of original 11 items 

requested were supplied and record did not support allegation that Respondent withheld other 2 items; and (2) Complainant failed to request Activity to meet and confer 

regarding procedures to be adopted or impact of decision 

upon adversely affected employees. (Army Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 395)

The Activity may refuse to recognize a guard as the 

president of a nonguard labor organization which represents 

a unit of guards and two units of nonguards at the same

60
35 28 08

Activity as guard participation in the management of a 

labor organization would give rise to a conflict or apparent 

conflict of interest and would be incompatible with his 

oflicial duties within the meaning of Sec. 1(b) of the EO. 

(Army Materiel Command, Tooele Army Depot, Utah, 

A/SLMR No. 406)

35 28 08

Failure to Meet and Confer Generally

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) when it advised President 

of labor organization representing grievant that management’s adjustment of grievance was made strictly on basis 

of unilateral considerations, and was not result of good faith 

efforts by Activity and exclusive representative. Such conduct 

constitutes refusal to consult, confer or negotiate as required 

by Sec. 19(a)(6). (Army Schl. Training Cntr., Fort McClellan, 

Ala., A/SLMR No. 42)

Activity’s change in schedule on day of bomb scare, 

without prior discussion with exclusive representative, was 

responsive to immediate emergency and therefore, not violative of Sec. 19(a)(6). (Dependent Schools, European Area 

(USDESEA), APO, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 138)

Allegation of refusal to consult, confer or negotiate dismissed because of lack of evidence inasmuch as obligation 

to negotiate does not require Activity to accede to demands, 

and impasse, after considerable negotiations, does not make 

violation. (Dependent Schools, European Area (USDESEA), 

APO, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 138)

A/S agreed with ALJ that, as defense to Sec. 19(a)(6) 

allegation of refusal to negotiate, Activity may not rely on 

contention, raised for first time in post-hearing brief to ALJ, 

that unit involved in ULP proceeding is inappropriate because it excludes off-duty military personnel, inasmuch as: 

(1) status of such personnel was not litigated in ULP proceeding to ascertain whether they meet criteria of A/S for 

inclusion; and (2) Activity had recognized appropriateness 

of unit following consent election. (AAFES, Keesler Consolidated Exchange, Miss., A/SLMR No. 144)

In evaluating Sec. 19(a)(6) allegations, A/S held that neither EO nor effectuating its policies requires him to interpret 

or police “ground rules” Activity and union established for 

negotiations, absent evidence that such side agreements constitute independent violations of EO. (AAFES, Keesler, Consolidated Exchange, Miss., A/SLMR No. 144)

Activity’s refusal to discuss proposals relating to hours of 

work, promotion, and dues checkoff not violative of Sec. 

19(a)(6) because these involve negotiability questions which 

must be decided initially by FLRC pursuant to Sec. 11 (c)(4) 

of EO prior to invoking the A/S ULP procedure. (AAFES, 

Keesler Consolidated Exchange, Miss., A/SLMR No. 144)

No Sec. 19(a)(6) violation found when Activity changed 

meal period for employees exclusively represented by Complainant from 30 minutes, as specified in negotiated agreement, to one hour, where agreement requires consultation 

with Complainant as to “any contemplated changes in the 

regularly scheduled workday or workweek” prior to implementation, and Activity fulfilled this requirement by changing meal period only after three separate meetings with Complainant on this matter. (Army School/Training Center, 

Fort Gordon, Ga., A/SLMR No. 148)

Activity’s unilateral cancellation of arbitration proceeding, 

scheduled pursuant to negotiated agreement without consulting exclusive representative, based on Activity’s judgment 

that matter was not arbitrable, is improper refusal to consult, 

confer or negotiate and violative of Sec. 19(a)(6). (Long 

Beach Naval Shipyard, Calif., A/SLMR No. 154)

Allegation that Respondent failed to confer, consult, or 

negotiate with Complainant union with respect to its participation in wage survey dismissed because: (1) Complainant 

had been informed of survey but did not request to participate in it; and (2) it is not incumbent updh Respondent to 

insist that Complainant exercise option contained in negotiated agreement of participating in survey. (Navy Exchange, 

Naval Air Station, Quonset Point, R.L, A/SLMR No. 180)

Allegation of Activity violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) by failure 

to grant formal hearing before impartial hearing officer to 

permit labor organization to present its grievance dismissed 

because: (1) there was adequate consultation between parties 

concerning grievance; (2) there was no proof of bad faith 

by Activity; and (3) Activity had no obligation under EO 

to grant the hearing requested by labor organization. (Air 

Technician Detachment at Dobbins AFB, Ga., and Travis 

Field, Savannah, Ga., A/SLMR No. 182)

Reply to charge by party against whom charge is directed 

is not required under Sec. 203.2 of Regs. Even assuming 

Respondent’s conduct in this regard was inconsistent with 

Regs., it would not constitute refusal to consult, confer, or 

negotiate within meaning of Sec. 19(a)(6) of EO. (Army Materiel Command, Automated Logistics Mgt. Systems Agency, 

A/SLMR No. 211)

Activity’s refusal to discuss proposed dues checkoff agreement separate from collective bargaining agreement, in accordance with DOD directive, not violative of Sec. 19(a)(6) 

because negotiability question involved which must be decided initially by FLRC pursuant to Sec. ll(c)(2)-l 1(c)(4) 

of EO prior to invoking A/S ULP procedure; (Army Materiel Command, Automated Logistics Mgt. Systems Agency, 

A/SLMR No. 211)

Activity changes in its Medical and Environmental Health 

Programs, which, contrary to Activity contention, required 

prior negotiations rather than mere consultation, nonetheless 

did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) because actions of parties, in 

fact, constituted negotiations (despite characterization by 

both parties as consultations). (Kennedy Space Center, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 223)

Local union’s allegation that Activity failed to negotiate 

on working conditions related to move to new location, 

found without merit. (OEO, Region V., Chicago, 111., A / 

SLMR No. 251)

Activity not obligated to consult, confer, or negotiate with 

labor organization with regard to nonsupervisory employees, 

where reorganization did not result in accretion or addition 

to existing unit. (Nat’l. Oceanic & Atmospheric Adm., 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 285 )

Respondent was not obligated to meet and confer with 

the Complainant over the adoption of Defense Language 

Institute Regulation 690-2 where Regulation was issued by 

Agency Headquarters “to achieve a desirable degree of uniformity and equality . . . common . . . to employees in more 

than one subordinate activity.” Once the Agency Headquarters issued the Regulation applicable to employees of other 

branches of DLI as well as those of the Activity, the matters 

contained therein were removed from the scope of negotiations at the local level. (AF Defense Language Institute,

61
35 28 16

Lackland AFB, Texas, A/SLMR No. 322; FLRC No/73A64)

Activity foreman’s alleged refusal to discuss settlement of 

an alleged unfair labor practice held not violative of Sec. 

19(a)(6) because obligation to meet and confer relates to the 

collective bargaining relationship between an incumbent labor organization and an agency or activity and a question 

relating to compliance with Regulations is an administrative 

matter to be handled in the processing of unfair labor practice cases. (Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Calif., A/SLMR 

No. 352)

Respondent did not violate the Order by refusing to confer 

with the Complainant for purposes of discussing the latter’s 

pending complaint without the presence of rival union representatives as matters relating to the processing of cases under the Assistant Secretary’s Regulations are administrative 

matters to be enforced by the Assistant Secretary and that 

such matters, standing alone, do not constitute unfair labor 

practices. (Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, Ariz., A/SLMR 

No. 401)

To resolve dispute on negotiability, Sec. 11(c) is appropriate procedure, with use of Sec. 19(a)(6) in such matters 

intended for situations in which labor organization believes 

that management has been arbitrary or in error in excluding 

matter from negotiation which already had been determined 

to be negotiable through Sec. 11(c) procedures. (R A/S No. 

26)

While awaiting the resolution of a petition in which an 

Activity has raised a good faith doubt as to the exclusive 

representative’s majority status or a good faith doubt as to 

the appropriateness of the existing unit, there is no obligation on the part of the Activity to negotiate with the exclusive representative. (R A/S No. 55)

35 28 12

Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures

Allegation that Respondent failed to confer, consult, or 

negotiate with Complainant with respect to impact on employees of RIF is dismissed because of lack of evidence that: 

(1) Complainant requested such bargaining; or, (2) Respondent exhibited a “closed mind” so as to have rendered any 

such request a futility. (Naval Air Reserve Training Unit, 

Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 106)

Activity did not violate obligation to consult, confer, or 

negotiate with respect to impact of its decision to eliminate 

civilian guards’ “graveyard” shift inasmuch as exclusive representative had ample opportunity prior to effectuation of 

such change to request bargaining on impact but failed to 

do so. (Norton AFB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 261)

Activity violated the Order by not giving exclusive representative notice of reduction-in-force and opportunity to 

confer thereon in advance of giving individual notices to affected employees with respect to procedure to be used in 

choosing which employees were to be subject to reductionin-force action. (Bur. of Medicine & Surgery, Great Lakes 

Naval Hosp., 111., A/SLMR No. 289)

Activity did not violate the Order with respect to failure 

to meet and confer in good faith concerning impact of reduction-in-force where there was 60 day period between 

issuance of RIF notices and implementation of the RIF, and 

at no time during this period did Complainant labor organization seek to meet and confer with Respondent concerning

the impact of the RIF on the employees adversely affected. 

(Bur. of Medicine & Surgery, Great Lakes Naval Hosp., Ill, 

A/SLMR No. 289)

Activity violated the Order where it: (1) improperly failed 

to meet and confer concerning procedure to be followed in 

selecting employees for reassignment; and (2) did not' afford 

exclusive representative an opportunity to meet and confer 

over the impact of its decision on those employees adversely 

affected by the reassignment. (FAA, Nat’l. Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 329)

Although there was no obligation on R.espondent to meet 

and confer with Complainant on the decision to establish the 

New Indian Preference Policy, there was an obligation to 

meet and confer, to the extent consonant with law and regulations, on the procedures the Respondent intended to observe in effectuating the new policy and on the impact of 

such policy on adversely affected employees. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 341)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by failing to afford Complainant reasonable opportunity to meet and confer, to extent consonant with law and regulations, on procedures to 

be utilized in effectuating its new policy with respect to enforcement of grooming standards, and on impact of such 

policy on adversely affected employees. (New Mexico Nat’l. 

Guard, Santa Fe., N.M., A/SLMR No. 362)

35 28 16

Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by refusal to allow exclusive representative opportunity to be represented at formal 

discussion between management and two employees concerning personnel policy and practice directly relating to all 

unit employees. (Army Training Center, Infantry, Laundry 

Facility, Ft. Jackson, S.C., A/SLMR No. 242)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) when it refused to afford 

the exclusive representative the opportunity to be represented at a meeting which constituted a “formal” discussion 

within the meaning of Sec. 10(e) of EO. (Army, Transportation Motor Pool, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 

278)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) when it refused to 

afford exclusive representative opportunity to be represented 

at “counselling sessions” which were not “formal discussions” 

within meaning of Sec. 10(e). (Texas Air National Guard, 

A/SLMR No. 336)

Respondent’s initial refusal to meet with employee’s chosen representative was not violative of the Order based on 

subsequent circumstance where representative was present 

at additional meetings. (Vandenberg AFB, Calif., A/SLMR 

No. 383)

Activity committed violation by depriving exclusive representative of specific right under EO Sec. 10(e) by excluding observer, representing the exclusive representative, from 

participating in resolution of employee’s grievance filed under Activity’s grievance procedure. (Naval Ordnance Station, 

Louisville, Ky„ A/SLMR No. 400)

35 28 20

Uncompromising Attitude

No violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) found either in terms of 

authority to bargain of Activity’s spokesman or in terms of

62
35 28 28

overall “good faith” bargaining despite spokesman’s indications, at various times, that certain proposals could not be 

approved because of conflict with Activity regulations and 

his refusal to request possible changes in such regulations. 

(AAFES, Keesler /Consolidated Exchange, Miss., A/SLMR, 

No. 144)

Refusal to sign negotiated agreement, terms of which previously had been agreed upon fully with exclusive representative, constitutes refusal to consult, confer, or negotiate 

in violation of Sec. 19(a)(6). A/S rejected Activity’s contention that no agreement could be executed until A/S made 

determination in related unit clarification case it had filed 

expressing doubt as to scope of certified unit, arising out of 

recent reorganization. A/S found unit remained viable and 

identifiable and Complainant was entitled to continued recognition. (HQ., Army Aviation Systems Command, Mo., 

A/SLMR No. 168; FLRC No. 72A-30)

Activity refusal to negotiate with exclusive representative 

regarding ground rules for negotiation of collective bargaining agreement on two occasions was a violation since conditions necessary for using procedure of RA petition as defense to its refusal to consult, confer, or negotiate were not 

present, (i.e., an agency must have a good faith doubt that 

the recognized or certified union represents a majority of 

the employees, or that the scope or character has changed 

so substantially or materially that it is no longer appropriate). 

(FAA, Atlanta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 287)

Activity violated the Order by refusing to sign collective 

barpining agreement negotiated and agreed to by its negotiator, and insisting upon substantial modification thereof, 

where the Activity had previously invested its negotiator with 

full authority to conclude the agreement and to bind the 

Activity to any agreement reached thereon. (Joint Tactical 

Com. Office, (TRI-TAC), DOD, Fort Monmouth, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 396)

Respondent Activity’s refusal to cease operations and meet 

with entire night crew to discuss working conditions not 

violative of the Order where Respondent shortly thereafter 

arranged a meeting with exclusive representative’s Local 

President and four other employees. (GSA, Region 6, PBS, 

K.C., Mo., A/SLMR No. 404)

35 28 24

Dilatory and Evasive Tactics

Respondent-caused delay of four months in start of negotiations, standing alone, ordinarily would constitute refusal 

to consult, confer, or negotiate within meaning of Sec. 

19(a)(6), but, because Complainant did not press for immediate negotiations and, once negotiations began, they were 

transacted with sufficient diligence, no violation found. 

(AAFES, Keesler Consolidated Exchange, Miss., A/SLMR 

No. 144)

Activity’s negotiating method of considering union’s proposed collective bargaining agreement article by article and 

not submitting its own counterproposals in advance is legitimate bargaining approach and not violative of Sec. 19(a)(6). 

(AAFES, Keesler Consolidated Exchange, Miss., A/SLMR 

No. 144)

No violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) based on Respondent’s failure to issue a decision within 30 days after receipt of Arbitrator’s advisory opinion; its failure to furnish labor organization’s District representative with a copy of the Arbitrator’s decision, while furnishing labor organization’s local 

with a copy; and its alleged initial rejection of an unfair 

labor practice charge filed by the Complainant. (Army Missile Command, Huntsville, Ala., A/SLMR No. 367)

Respondent did not violate the Order by allegedly failing 

to provide chief negotiator with sufficient bargaining authority at negotiating sessions held subsequent to Agency’s 

return of agreement for “changes. . . required in order to 

bring agreement in conformity with applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Order 11491...,” where: (1) chief negotiator had adequate authority to negotiate on behalf of 

Respondent; (2) there is no requirement in EO that Respondent’s chief negotiator have authority to negotiate on 

behalf of the Agency or that the Agency had to be represented at such negotiations; and (3) calls made to Agency 

by Respondent’s chief negotiator merely constituted an 

agreed-upon procedure to obtain Sec. 15 approval of modified clauses by Agency as they were renegotiated. (Air 

Nat’l. Guard Bureau, Vt., A/SLMR No. 397)

Record failed to establish that Respondent engaged in any 

dilatory tactics concerning setting up initial meeting or any 

subsequent meetings on ground rules for bargaining. (Air 

Nat’l. Guard Bureau, Vt., A/SLMR No. 397)

35 28 28

Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) of EO where it unilaterally 

altered manner in which shifts would be scheduled in Nursing Service and put into effect schedule which was at variance with the terms of its negotiated agreement. Activity’s 

contention that matter be considered a “contract dispute” 

and handled through grievance procedure rejected. (VA 

Hospital, Charleston, S.C., A/SLMR No. 87)

Respondent’s unilateral termination of negotiated agreement and revocation of dues allotments were “part and parcel” of its failure to continue to accord appropriate recognition, rather than independent acts and therefore, although 

violative of Sec. 19(a)(5), are not violations of Sec. 19(a)(6). 

(Naval Air Reserve Training Unit, Memphis, Tenn., A / 

SLMR No. 106)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by changing time schedules 

for processing of cases by its legal assistants without affording exclusive representative adequate notice and opportunity 

to bargain prior to effecting such change, which A/S held 

to be matter affecting working conditions within meaning of 

Sec. 11(a) of EO and not privileged by virtue of Sec. 11(b) 

and Sec. 12. A/S adopted ALJ’s finding that Sec. 11(c) of 

EO does not apply to this matter and does not deprive A/S 

of jurisdiction because issue did not arise “in connection with 

negotiations.” (NLRB, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 246)

Activity’s refusal to refer Council dispute to advisory arbitration under existing agreement unilaterally modified 

terms of the agreement and was violative of the Order. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Va., A/SLMR No. 290)

Agency’s unilateral determination of grievability found to 

be violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) in accordance with A/SLMR 

Nos. 290 and 154. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Wash., 

A/SLMR No. 332)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) where, under terms 

of a negotiated agreement, the labor organization clearly

63
35 28 36

and unequivocally waived a past practice, and the labor organization did not meet its burden of proving that the Activity’s implementation of the agreement in this regard constituted a unilateral change in the agreed-upon terms and 

conditions of employment. (VA Cntr., Bath, N.Y., A/SLMR 

No. 335)

Activity violated the Order by unilaterally changing an 

agreed-upon term and condition of employment. (Calif. 

Nat’l. Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 348)

A/S dismissed allegation where ALJ inadvertently failed 

to rule on whether the Respondent violated the Order by 

issuing certain warnings. (Calif. Nat’l. Guard, State Military 

Forces, Sacramento, Calif., A/SLMR No. 348)

Respondent’s unilateral termination of negotiated agreement and threat to discontinue dues deductions violative to 

Sec. 19(a)(5) rather than 19(a)(6) because the matters related 

to an improper refusal to accord appropriate recognition 

such as the termination of a negotiated agreement and threat 

to discontinue dues deduction are violations of Sec. 19(a)(5) 

as previously stated in United States Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Naval Air Reserve Training

Unit, Memphis, Tennessee, A/SLMR No. 106, and not Sec. 

19(a)(6). (DSA, Defense Property Disposal Office, Aberdeen, 

Md.’, A/SLMR No. 360)

Activity policy of requiring all personnel to obtain an administrative permit prior to entering a work section within 

a security control area was a long-standing Activity policy 

and consequently, did not constitute a unilateral change in 

working conditions. (Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, 

Robins AFB, Georgia, A/SLMR No. 374)

Respondent violated the Order by unilateral implementation of a regulation issued by higher echelon within Agency 

as the regulation was not that of an “appropriate authority” 

within the meaning of Sec. 12(a) of the Order, and therefore, could not serve to modify the terms of an existing local 

agreement. (Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, 

Miss., A/SLMR No. 390)

Activity’s action in unilaterally changing terms and conditions of its negotiated agreement with exclusive representative by deleting classification of Progressmen from bargaining unit without first consulting or negotiating with exclusive 

representative was not violation because Progressmen were 

found to be supervisors within meaning of EO Sec. 2(c). 

(Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky., A/SLMR No.

400)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by changing competitive areas during pendency of RA petition as it was under 

no obligation to meet and confer with the Complainant during this period which may or may not have continued to 

represent an appropriate unit based on the outcome of the 

RA petition. (Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, Ariz., A / 

SLMR No. 401)

35 28 32

Bypassing Exclusive Representative

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) when it informed employee 

that it was winthdrawing its reprimand to him unilaterally 

and not as result of labor organization grievance, and that 

same result would have been obtained had he dealt directly

with management. By such actions Activity clearly urged 

employee to bypass exclusive representative in adjustment 

of future grievances, thereby undermining status of exclusive 

representative.

Activity further violated Sec. 19(a)(6) when it advised 

President of labor organization representing grievant that 

management’s adjustment of grievance was made strictly on 

basis of unilateral considerations, and was not result of good 

faith efforts by Activity and exclusive representative. Such 

conduct constitutes refusal to consult, confer, or negotiate 

as required by Sec. 19(a)(6). (Army School/Training Cntr., 

Fort McClellan, Ala., A/SLMR No. 42)

Although A/S considered it better practice for Activity 

to have contacted grievant’s chosen representative, who was 

officer of exclusive representative, to discuss alternative dates 

for upcoming grievance proceeding, rather than to discuss 

matter with grievant directly, A/S found that evidence did 

not establish that this conduct was attempt by Activity to 

undermine or bypass exclusive representative union. Nor did 

A/S consider two Activity letters to grievant to constitute 

attempts to bypass union, noting that copies of such letters 

were served on union. (HQ., Air Force Flight Test Center, 

Edwards AFB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 255)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) of EO by dealing directly 

with unit employees on the Youth Advisory Committee 

(YAC) at various management staff committees of Respondent Activity where personnel policies and practices were 

discussed, and thus undermining and bypassing the employees’ exclusive representative. (VA Hospital, Muskogee, Okla., 

A/SLMR No. 301)

Activity violated the Order by unilateral implementation 

of a change in the promotion policy at the Activity, thereby 

bypassing the exclusive representative and disparaging it in 

the eyes of unit employees. (VA Cntr., Hampton, Va., 

A/SLMR No. 385)

Respondent’s failure to meet and confer with the employees’ exclusive representative prior to the issuance of a 

questionnaire to employees covering their terms and conditions of employment found to be unilateral conduct which 

constituted an improper bypass and undermining of the status of its employees’ exclusive representative. (Wadsworth 

Hospital Cntr., Los Angeles, Calif., A/SLMR No. 388)

Activity’s failure to recognize exclusive representative as 

the representative of unit employee involved in adverse action proceeding was violation as it was in derogation of Complainant’s exclusive representative status and its ongoing obligation under EO Sec. 10(e) to represent interests of employee in such circumstances until such time as he has indicated his desire to choose his own representative pursuant 

to Sec. 7(d)(1). (Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky., 

A/SLMR No. 400)

35 28 36

Refusal to Furnish Information

Allegations of violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) by refusal to furnish home addresses of employees in unit to exclusive representative dismissed because evidence failed to establish that 

union lacked effective means of communicating with unit 

employees. A/S, however, rejected ALJ’s apparent finding 

that where exclusive representative has several means of 

communicating with unit employees, each of which alone 

may be inadequate to provide effective communication, cu64
40 16 00

mulative effect of the various means available may nevertheless provide adequate means for such communication. (IRS, 

Office of the District Director, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR 

No. 214; FLRC No. 72A-50)

Activity’s denial of request to provide by next morning 

copies of voluminous documents relating to reduction-inforce not violative of Sec. 19(a)(6) where there was no showing that Activity’s offer to allow Complainant’s representatives to examine materials without receiving copies would 

have been inadequate. (Bur. of Medicine & Surgery, Great 

Lakes Naval Hosp., 111., A/SLMR No. 289)

35 32 00

Section 19(d)

As appeals procedure available to the employee was not 

one in which the unfair labor practice issue properly could 

be raised, it did not fall within the meaning of Sec. 19(d) 

and, thus, did not bar the A /S’s consideration of the employee’s unfair labor practice complaint. (Veterans Benefits 

Office, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 296)

Respondent’s contention that one of the grievances involved was subject to Sec. 19(d) and that the complaint 

therefore, was dismissable was rejected by ALT, noting that 

issue herein was unilateral interpretation of the agreement 

which could not be resolved through an appeals procedure. 

(Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Wash., A/SLMR No. 332)

A/S did not have jurisdiction to decide merits of complaint as there was no evidence that Complainant was prevented from raising contested issue under appeals procedure. 

(Texas Air National Guard, A/SLMR No. 336)

The A/S ordered dismissal of complaint on the ground' 

that pursuant to EG Sec. 19(d) he was without authority to 

consder such matters, noting that prior to the filing of the 

charge or grievance addressing the same issues raised by the 

charge and subsequent complaint was filed with the Respondent. (Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, Robins APB, Ga., 

A/SLMR No. 340)

Although record did not indicate whether there was appeals procedure available to Complainant, A/S found it unnecessary to determine whether 19(d) was applicable in view 

of his disposition of case dismissing complaint on the merits. 

(Calif. Nat’l. Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 348)

Sec. 19(d) did not require dismissal of complaint inasmuch 

as A/S concluded that the issue of whether or not exclusive 

representative had obligation, by virtue of its exclusive representative status, to represent employee affected by adverse 

action could not be raised properly under adverse action appeals procedure involved. (Naval Ordnance Station, LouisviUe, Ky., A/SLMR No. 400)

Sec. 19(d) was not dispositive of the unfair labor practice 

allegations in this case as the Civil Service Commission’s 

Board of Appeals and Review had ruled that the Respondent 

had established a competitive area in accordance with Civil 

Service regulations and the testimony developed in connection with the unfair labor practice complaint pertaining to 

the reasons for separate competitive areas was not relevant 

in the adjudication of the propriety of the competitive areas 

as established. (Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, Ariz., A / 

SLMR No. 401)

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:

LABOR ORGANIZATION

40 04 00

General

Deprivation of Respondent’s status as labor organization 

under EO because of finding it engaged in strike does not 

relieve Respondent of accountability for violation under 

Sec. 19(b) of EO, which prohibits “labor organizations” 

from calling or engaging in strike. (PATCO, A/SLMR No. 

10)

40 08 00

Section 19(b)(1)

Despite findings that Respondent violated Sec. 19(b)(4) by 

participating in and condoning work stoppage, A/S found no 

violation of Sec. 19(b)(1) since it was not shown that work 

stoppage constituted interference, restraint or coercion of 

employees within meaning of EO, nor does evidence warrant finding that Respondent committed independent acts of 

interference, restraint, or coercion against individual employees. (PATCO, A/SLMR No. 10)

A/S found no Sec. 19(b)(1) violation because of no independent evidence of Union interference with, restraint, or 

coercion of employees in exercise of rights assured by EO. 

(AAFES, Keesler Consolidated Exchange, Miss., A/SLMR 

No. 144)

Exclusive representative did not violate Sec. 19(b)(1) 

where, in the absence of any pending question concerning 

representation, it negotiated and executed an agreement with 

the local level of the Activity. Activity Headquarters’ subsequent ratification of agreement, notwithstanding fact that, 

during pendency of Headquarters’ review of agreement, majority of employees signed petition opposing representation 

by incumbent, not considered to require contrary result. 

(FAA, Jacksonville ATC Center, and Fed. Aviation Science 

and Tech. Assoc., NAGE, Local R5-20, Fla., A/SLMR No.

194)

The refusal by a Labor Organization to accept and honor 

a member’s resignation from membership, submitted in accordance with its constitution or bylaws, violated Sec. 19

(b)(1) of EO as such conduct interfered with and restrained 

member employees’ rights under Sec. 1(a) of EO to refrain 

from joining or assisting a labor organization. (Local 1858, 

AFGE [Redstone Arsenal, Ala.], A/SLMR No. 275)

Respondent labor organization interfered with Complainant’s exercise of rights under Sec. 1(a) of the Order by refusing to allow him to resign from the organization, and by 

subsequently listing and publishing the Complainant’s name 

in its monthly “Bulletin.” (Graphic Arts Int’n’l. Union, Local 

4B, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 359)

40 12 00

Section 19(b)(2)

No entries.

40 16 00

Section 19(b)(3)

No entries.

40 00 00

65
45 16 04

40 20 00

Section 19(b)(4)

Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Sec. 19(b)(4) 

of EO, in that it called or engaged in strike, work stoppage, 

or slowdown or condoned such activity by failing to take 

affirmative action to prevent or stop it. (PATCO, A/SLMR 

No. 10)

40 24 00

Section 19(b)(5)

No entries.

40 28 00

Section 19(b)(6)

Evidence fails to support contention of Sec. 19(b)(6) violations by virtue of Union’s: (1) alleged denial of proper authority to bargain to negotiators; and (2) expressions of displeasure with aspects of EO and Activity’s policies and regulations. (AAFES, Keesler Consolidated Exchange, Miss., 

A/SLMR No. 144)

40 32 00

Section 19(c)

Where the question of the propriety of discipline imposed by a Labor Organization was not raised in an unfair 

labor practice complaint alleging a violation of Sec. 19(b)(1), 

the A/S did not deem it appropriate to consider whether the 

discipline was permissible under EO and, if so, whether it 

was reasonable. (Local 1858, AFGE [Redstone Arsenal, 

Ala.], A/SLMR No. 275)

Resignation from membership in a Labor Organization 

does not extinguish that Organization’s right under Sec. 19(c) 

of EO to enforce discipline against the former member for 

improper conduct prior to the resignation, provided such 

discipline is enforced in accordance with procedures under 

its constitution or bylaws which conform to requirements 

of EO. (Local 1858, AFGE [Redstone Arsenal, Ala.], 

A/SLMR No. 275.

Respondent’s refusal (Local and National) to reinstate 

Complainants to membership because Complainants failed 

to obtain a % majority of the voting members, in accordance with the Respondent Local’s constitution was violative of Sec. 19(c) in that such requirement was inconsistent 

with the language of Sec. 19(c) which grants a right to a 

unit employee to become a member of a labor organization 

of his own choosing except for failure to meet reasonable 

occupational standards or failure to tender initiation fees 

and dues, uniformly required for admission and retaining 

membership. (AFGE, Beeville, Texas, A/SLMR No. 294)

45 00 00

REIVIEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES:

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

45 04 00

Notification and Dissemination of Remedies

Activity ordered to post A/S notice, signed by Head of 

Activity, for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Activity Head shall take reasonable steps 

to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, 

S.C., A/SLMR No. 1)

Activity ordered to distribute A/S notice to all employees

* to whom Activity had distributed previous memoranda regarding restrictions on campaigning. (Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 1)

Contention that remedial notices be posted at all Agency 

facilities, inasmuch as policy* found to be violative was announced throughout Agency, rejected by A/S as unnecessary 

because remedial Order requires Agency to make appropriate changes in its Regulations. (Navy Dept, and Naval 

Weapons Sta., Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No. 139; reversed 

on other grounds FLRC No. 72A-20)

Activity ordered to distribute A/S notice regarding the 

wearing of union membership buttons to all instructors still 

assigned to the Federal Aviation Administration Academy. 

(FAA Aeronautical Center, Okla. City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 

253)

45 08 00

Advice of Compliance

Activity is ordered to notify A/S in writing within ten 

(10) days from date of his Decision and Order as to steps 

taken to comply therewith, pursuant to Sec. 203.26 of Regs. 

(Charleston Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 1)

Activity is ordered to notify A/S' in writing within twenty 

(20) days from date of his Decision and Order as to steps 

taken to comply therewith, pursuant to Sec. 203.26 of 

amended Regs. (Army Training Center, Infantry, Laundry 

Facility, Ft. Jackson, S.C., A/SLMR No. 242)

45 12 00

Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and Orders

Activity regulation prohibiting instructors from ' engaging 

in any union activity or wearing membership buttons is ordered cancelled to the extent that it is inconsistent with 

Order of A/S. (FAA Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, 

Okla., A/SLMR No. 117; reversed, in part, FLRC No. 

72A-1)

Activity ordered to bring its regulations into compliance 

with the requirement that necessary union witnesses be made 

available on official time to participate in formal unit determination hearings. (Navy Dept, and Naval Weapons Sta., 

Yorktown, Va., A/SLMR No. 139; Reserve Command Hq., 

Camp McCoy, Sparta, Wisp., 102nd Reserve Command, St. 

Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 256; reversed FLRC Nos. 72A-20 

and 73A-18)

45 16 00

Remedies for Improper Conduct

45 16 04

Interference, Solicitations or Distribution of Literature

Activity ordered to cease and desist from: (1) promulgating or maintaining no-solicitation rule which restricts its employees from engaging in solicitation on behalf of any labor 

organization at workplace during their nonwork time provided there is no interference with work of Activity; (2) 

promulgating or maintaining rule which prohibits its employees from distributing literature on behalf of any labor 

organization on Activity’s premises in nonwork areas during 

their nonwork time; and, (3) in any like or related manner 

interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in 

exercise of rights assured by Sec. 1(a) of EO. (Charleston 

Naval Shipyard, S.C., A/SLMR No. 1)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from: (1) soliciting 

employees represented by exclusive representative to deal 

directly with management with respect to resolution of their

66
45 16 04

grievances, and (2) promising employees benefits in order to 

restrain them from utilizing negotiated grievance procedure 

and their exclusive representative. (Army Schl. Training 

Cntr., Fort McCleUan, Ala., A/SLMR No. 42)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from communicating 

to any of its employees not directly involved in processing 

of specific grievance, either orally or in writing, derogatory 

information concerning fellow employee who initiates grievance proceeding. (Ark. Nat’l. Guard, A/SLMR No. 53)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to 

process or dilatorily processing employee grievances. (VA 

Hospital, Charleston, S.C., A/SLMR No. 87)

Activity is ordered to cease and desist from interfering 

with, restraining, or coercing employees by withdrawing 

recognition from their exclusive bargaining representative 

and by refusing to honor and enforce the negotiated agreement with that labor organization and the dues allotment 

authorizations executed in its behalf.

Activity further ordered to honor and enforce its negotiated agreement and its agreement covering voluntary allotments for payment of dues with Complainant labor organization. (Naval Air Reserve Training Unit, Memphis, Tenn., 

A/SLMR No. 106)

Activity is ordered to cease and desist from: (1) promulgating or maintaining an order which prohibits its instructors from engaging in solicitation, or any other legitimate 

activity, on behalf of the Complainant or any other labor 

organization, at their workplace or elsewhere during their 

nonwork time, providing there is no interference with the 

work of the Agency; and (2) promulgating or maintaining an 

order which prohibits instructors from wearing union membership buttons.

Activity is further ordered to take the following affirmative action: (1) cancel its violative order to extent it is inconsistent with A/S Order; and, (2) post A/S Notice to Employees and distribute copies to all Activity instructors. 

(FAA Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, Okla.; A/SLMR 

No. 117; reversed, in part, FLRC 72A-1)

■ Activity ordered to cease and desist from restricting employees’ freedom of movement within Activity on nonworking time.

Activity further ordered to expunge from her personnel 

records the unsatisfactory performance appraisal and discriminatory disciplinary warnings and memoranda restricting her freedom of movement within Activity on nonworking time. (EPA, Perrine Primate Lab., Florida, A/SLMR 

No. 136)

Agency ordered to cease and desist from promulgating or 

maintaining policy of refusing to make available on official 

time necessary union witnesses for participation at formal 

unit determination hearings. (Navy Dept, and Naval Weap- 

. ons Sta., Yorktown, Va.; Reserve Command Hq:. Camp 

McCoy, Sparta, Wise., 102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, 

Mo., A/SLMR No. 256; reversed FLRC Nos. 72A-20 and 

73A-18)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from interfering with, 

restraining, or coercing employees by preventing a steward, 

or any other individual acting as a representative of said 

labor organization, from speaking on behalf of any employee in the bargaining unit at formal discussions between 

management and employees or employee representatives 

concerning grievances, personnel policies and practices, or

other matters affecting general working conditions. (Army 

Training Center, Infantry, Laundry Facility, Ft. Jackson, 

S.C., A/SLMR No. 242)

Pursuant to FLRC Decision on Appeal, A/S issued Supplemental Decision and Order, ordering Activity to cease and 

desist from promulgating or maintaining order prohibiting 

instructors from wearing buttons, and ordered that notice to 

to this effect be distributed to instructors and be posted. 

(FAA Aeronautical Center, Okla. City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 

253; FLRC No. 72A-1)

Activity ordered to restore to Complainant all annual leave 

with which he was charged because of attending and testifying at formal unit determination hearing. (Reserve Command HQ., Camp McCoy, Sparta, Wise., 102nd Reserve 

Command, St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 256)

ALJ’s Recommended Order remedying violation of Sec. 

19(a)(1) modified by A/S so as to include specific affirmative 

action by the Activity to expunge any reference to the union 

activities of named employee, or any other employee, from 

personnel files or appraisal forms. (Western Division of 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 264)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from interfering with, 

restraining, or coercing any employee in the bargaining unit 

by denying them the right to be represented by the president 

of their labor organization, or any other individual designated to act as a representative of said labor organization, 

at any meeeing or formal discussion between management 

and employees. (Army, Transportation Motor Pool, Fort 

Wainwright, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 278)

Implementation of Sec. 19(a)(1) remedial order pertaining 

to Agency’s refusal to maintain employee witness at unit 

determination hearing on official time was stayed, pending 

final disposition of appeal before FLRC on this issue in related cases. (Army, Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, 

N.J., A/SLMR No. 281)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from interfering with, 

restraining, or coercing employees by (1) censoring or otherwise limiting those items which employees and labor organizations wish to place on bulletin boards and in reading binders properly assigned for their use for reasons different from 

or inconsistent with standards published by the Federal Aviation Administration to regulate such use; (2) censoring or 

otherwise limiting those items which employees wish to distribute on behalf of the Complainant or any other labor 

organization during their nonwork time in nonwork areas 

of the Activity, ad (3) threatening employees with discipline 

or loss of privileges if they fail to comply with improper 

limitations placed upon communications. (L.A. ATC Cntr., 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 283)

In view of FLRC’s decision to set aside A/S findings of 

violation in A/SLMR Nos. 139 and 256, A/S dismissed in 

its entirety complaint in case A/SLMR No. 281 concerning 

refusal to make available on official time necessary witness 

at formal unit determination hearings. (Army, Electronics 

Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 320)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from taking reprisals 

against any of its employees who have utilized their rights 

under the EO to file a contractual grievance. Activity further 

ordered to remove or expunge any reference to warning letters issued to the employee involved from its files and submit 

to said employee a written acknowledgment of same. (Cal.

67
45 16 16

Nat’l. Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 348)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from threatening to 

terminate unilaterally the dues withholding agreement between Activity and Complainant labor organization. (Army 

Natick Lab., Natick, Mass., A/SLMR No. 381)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from interrogating its 

employees as to their membership in, or activities on behalf 

of, Complainant labor organization or any other labor organization, and from interfering with, restricting, or coercing 

its employees by instructing or admonishing them to lefrain 

from conferring with, or giving any information to, the 

president of the Complainant labor organization or any other 

union representative, concerning grievances, personnel policies and practices, or other matters affecting general working 

conditions. (Vandenberg AFB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 383)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from failing to notify 

Complainant labor organization, or any other exclusive representative, concerning changes in existing promotion policies and practices, or other matters affecting the working 

conditions of employees in the unit. Activity further ordered 

to notify Complainant labor organization, or any other exclusive representatives, of any intended changes in existing 

promotion policies and practices, or other matters affecting 

the working conditions of employees in the unit. (VA Cntr., 

Hampton, Va., A/SLMR No. 385)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from informing its 

employees that an official of Complainant labor organization, 

the employees’ exclusive representative, in his official capacity, may not be designated as an employee’s representative 

in making a reply to a notice of proposed adverse action. 

Activity further ordered to notify Complainant labor organization that it will be allowed, as the employees’ exclusive 

representative, to represent the interests of any employee 

in the bargaining unit who is involved in an adverse action 

proceeding where there is no indication that the employee 

has chosen a representative other than the exclusive representative. (Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky., A / 

SLMR No. 400)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from changing the 

area of competition for purposes of a reduction-in-force 

during the pendency of an RA petition. Activity further 

ordered to reestablish the areas of competition to those which 

existed prior to the change, reevaluate all layoffs made subsequent to such date,- and, should it develop that any employee 

was incorrectly laid off, reinstate such employee to his 

appropriate position and duly reimburse any loss of pay 

occasioned by layoff. (Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, Ariz., 

A/SLMR No. 401)

45 16 08

Discrimination

Activity ordered to cease and desist from; (I) discouraging membership in Complainant labor organization by discriminatorily issuing unsatisfactory performance appraisals 

to employees and by discriminatorily placing employees on 

leave without pay status, and (2) issuing discriminatory disciplinary warnings to employees.

Activity further ordered to take affirmative action to 

make necessary adjustment to compensate discriminatee for 

pay withheld when she was discriminatorily placed on leave 

without pay status. (EPA, Perrine Primate Lab., Florida, 

A/SLMR No. 136)

45 16 12

Assisting a Labor Organization

Activity ordered to cease and desist from assisting a labor 

organization, which is not a party to a pending representation 

proceeding which raises a question concerning representation, 

by permitting that labor organization the use of its facilities 

in the same manner as permitted a labor organization which 

is a party to the pending representation proceeding. (DSA, 

DCASR, Burlingame, Cal., A/SLMR No. 247)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from assisting any 

labor organization, by permitting non-employee representatives of any such organizations access to its premises for the 

purpose of conducting an organizational campaign among 

its employees, at a time when such organizations are not 

party to a pending representation proceeding raising a question concerning representation and when the employees are 

represented exclusively-. (Army Natick Lab., Natick, Mass., 

A/SLMR No. 263)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from assisting any 

labor organization by virtue of a supervisor’s posting literature of any such labor organizations on a facility bulletin 

board. (Army Natick Lab., Natick, Mass., A/SLMR No.

263)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from interfering with 

or attempting to control the outcome of any election by 

endorsing a candidate for Union office, or by participating, 

in any like or related manner, in the interal affairs of a labor 

organization. Activity further ordered to direct all mangement officials, supervisors and representatives of management 

not to interfere with, or attempt to control the outcome of 

any election by endorsing any candidate for office or by 

participating, in any like or related manner, in the internal 

affairs of a labor organization. (Navy, Office of the Sec’y., 

Wash., D.C. A/SLMR No. 393)

45 16 16

Refusal to Accord Appropriate Recognition

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to 

accord exclusive recognition to Complainant labor organization by the withdrawal of exclusive recognition and the 

refusal to honor and enforce the negotiated agreement with 

that labor organization and the dues allotment authorizations 

executed in its behalf.

Activity is further ordered to take the following affirmative action: (1) upon request, accord exclusive recognition 

to Complainant labor organization in the unit in which it 

had previously enjoyed recognition, and (2) commencing 

with the first pay period after the date of the A /S’s Order, 

deduct regular and periodic dues from the pay of employees 

in the appropriate unit who have made and who may in the 

future make voluntary allotments, and remit the dues to 

the Complainant labor organization. (Naval Air Reserve 

Training Unit, Memphis, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 106)

Retroactive checkoff of dues by the Activity is not an 

appropriate remedy for the Activity’s improper revocation 

of dues, inasmuch as such remedy would impose an undue 

hardship on employees and, while EO provides for allotment 

of dues, payment of dues is still the responsibility of the 

employee. (Naval Air Reserve Training Unit, Memphis, 

Tenn., A/SLMR No. 106)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to 

accord exclusive recognition to Complainant labor organiza68
45 16 20

tion and similarly situated labor organizations, by withdrawal 

of exclusive recognition, refusal to honor and enforce the 

negotiated agreement with these labor organizations, and 

threatening to discontinue the dues allotments executed in 

their behalf. Activity further ordered, upon request,, to 

accord exclusive recognition to Complainant labor organization in the unit in which it had previously enjoyed recognition, 

and honor all terms of the existing negotiated agreement. 

(DSA, Defense Property Disposal Off., Aberdeen, Md., 

A/SLMR No. 360)

45 16 20

Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to 

negotiate in good faith in processing grievance pursuant to 

provisions of agreement with exclusive representative.

Activity further ordered to take following affirmative 

action: Upon request, consult, confer or negotiate in good 

faith with exclusive representative of employees in processing grievances. (Army Schl. Training Cntr., Fort McClellan, 

Ala., A/SLMR No. 42)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

changing the scheduling of the days off of its employees in 

violation of its agreement, or any other terms and conditions 

of employment without consulting, conferring or negotiating 

with the exclusive representative of its employees. (VA 

Hospital, Charleston, S.C., A/SLMR No. 87)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

cancelling arbitration proceedings scheduled pursuant to 

its negotiated agreement.

Activity further ordered to reinstate the arbitration proceeding previously scheduled. (Long Beach Naval Shipyard, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 154)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to sign 

negotiated agreement agreed to with exclusive representative, 

and to take the affirmative action, upon request, of signing 

such agreement. (HQ., Army Aviation Systems Command, 

Mo., A/SLMR No. 168)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from conducting 

formal discussions between management and employees or 

employee representatives concerning grievances, personnel 

policies and practices, or other matters affecting general 

working conditions of employees in the unit without giving 

the employees’ exclusive representative the opportunity to 

be represented at such discussions by its own chosen representative. (Army Training Center, Infantry, Laundry Facility, 

Ft. Jackson, S.C., A/SLMR No. 242)

Activity ordered to notify employees’ exclusive representative of, and give it the opportunity to be represented at, 

formal discussions between mnaagement and employees or 

employee representatives. (Army Training Center, Infantry, 

Laundry Facility, Ft. Jackson, S.C., A/SLMR No. 242; 

Army, Transportation Motor Pool, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, 

A/SLMR No. 278)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from instituting 

changes in time schedules for processing of cases by unit 

employees without consulting, conferring or negotiating with 

the exclusive representative of unit employees.

Activity further ordered to consult, confer or negotiate 

with exclusive representative with respect to changes in 

time schedules for processing of cases. (NLRB, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 246)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to 

consult, confer or negotiate with the exclusive representative 

of the Respondent’s employees.

Activity further ordered to consult, confer or negotiate 

with the exclusive representative. (FAA, Atlanta, Ga., 

A/SLMR No. 287)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from instituting a 

reduction-in-force action involving employees exclusively 

represented without notifying such representative and affording it the opportunity to meet and confer, to the extent consonant with law and regulations, on the procedures which 

management will observe in reaching the decision as to who 

will be subject to the reduction-in-force action.

Activity further ordered to notify the exclusive representative of any intended reduction-in-force action, and, upon 

request, meet and confer in good faith. (Bur. of Medicine & 

Surgery, Great Lakes Naval Hosp., 111., A/SLMR No. 289)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

determining the arbitrability of dispute concerning the work 

assignments of Electronics Mechanics and Instrument 

Mechanics (Electronics) pursuant to its negotiated agreement. 

Activity further ordered, upon request, to proceed to advisory arbitration on the dispute. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 

Va., A/SLMR No. 290)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from dealing directly 

with unit employees on the Youth Advisory Committee with 

respect to personnel policies and practices, or other matters 

affecting the general working conditions of employees in the 

unit. Activity further ordered, upon request, to consult, 

confer or negotiate in good faith only with the exclusive 

representative of its employees. (VA Hospital, Muskogee, 

Okla., A/SLMR No. 301)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from instituting a 

reassignment of employees without notifying exclusive 

representative, and from failing to afford such representative the opportunity to meet and confer, to the extent 

consonant with law and regulations, on the procedures 

which management will observe in reaching the decision as 

to who will be subject to the reassignment, and on the impact 

the reassignment will have on the employees adversely 

affected by such action. Activity further ordered to notify 

the exclusive representative of any intended reassignment 

of employees and, upon request, to meet and confer in good 

faith, to the extent consonant with law and regulations, on 

the procedures which management will observe in reaching 

the decision as to who will be subject to the reassignment, 

and on the impact the reassignment will have on the employees adversely affected by such action. (FAA, Nat’l. 

Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 329)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

determining the grievability or arbitrability of the layer-out 

grievance or the supervisory assignment grievance pursuant 

to its negotiated agreement. Activity further ordered, upon 

request, to proceed to Step 3 of the negotiated grievance 

procedure on the layer-out grievance or the supervisory 

assignment grievance, and, if disputed matters remain unresolved thereafter, upon request, to proceed to advisory 

arbitration on the grievances. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 

Wash., A/SLMR No. 332)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to 

consult or negotiate with Complainant labor organization. 

Activity further ordered to advise appropriate officials of

69
50 08 00

Complainant labor organization that it is willing to consult 

and negotiate on subjects at issue, and, upon request, engage 

in negotiations concerning these matters. (Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 341)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

changing the scheduling of the days of its employees or any 

other terms and conditions of employment without consulting, conferring or negotiating with Complainant labor 

organization. Activity further ordered to observe and adhere 

to all provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Activity and Complainant labor organization, and to 

consult, confer and negotiate in good faith with respect to 

any change in terms and conditions of employment. (Cal. 

Nat’l. Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 348)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from: (1) unilaterally 

implementing its memorandum concerning grooming requirements expected to be observed by employees exclusively 

represented by either Complainant labor organization, or any 

other exclusive representative; (2) refusing to afford such 

representative the opportunity to meet and confer on the 

procedures which management will observe in effectuating 

its new policy with respect to the enforcement of grooming 

standards and on the impact such policy will have on the 

employees adversely affected by such action. Activity further 

ordered to notify Complainant labor organization, or any 

other exclusive representative, of any intended change in 

policy with respect to the enforcement of grooming standards, and, upon request, to meet and confer in good faith, 

on the procedures which management will observe in effectuating its new policy with respect to the enforcement of 

grooming standards and on the impact such policy will have 

on the employees adversely affected by such action. (New 

Mexico Air Nat’l. Guard, Santa Fe, N.M., A/SLMR No. 

362)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

soliciting a commitment, through a questionnaire, from 

employees represented by Complainant labor organization, 

or any other exclusive representative, as to whether or not 

they would accept reassignment or detail. Activity further 

ordered to notify Complainant labor organization, or any 

other exclusive representative, of any proposed attempt to 

solicit a commitment from unit employees, through a questionnaire, as to whether or not they would accept reassignment or detail and, upon request, meet and confer in good 

faith with such representative regarding the matters contained in said questionnaire insofar as such matters involve 

personnel policies and practices and affect working conditions. (Wadsworth Hospital Cntr., L.A., Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 388)

Activity ordered to rescind retroactively local implementation of regulation issued by higher echelon which was 

contrary to the term of an existing negotiated agreement. 

(Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss., 

A/SLMR No. 390)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to sign 

negotiated agreement previously agreed upon and modified 

by mutual consent with Complainant labor organization. 

Activity further ordered to sign said agreement, upon request, 

(Joint Tactical Com. Office, (Tri-Tac), DOD, Fort Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 396)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from; (1) conducting 

formal discussions between management and employees or

employee representatives concerning grievances, personnel 

policies and practices, or other matters, affecting general 

working conditions without giving the Complainant labor 

organization the opportunity to be represented at such discussions by its own representatives and, (2) refusing to allow 

Complainant labor organization, the exclusive representative, 

to represent the interest of any employee in the bargaining 

unit who is involved in an adverse action proceeding where 

there is no indication that the employee has chosen a representative other than the exclusive representative. Activity 

further ordered, upon request of Complainant labor organization, to proceed with the processing of the involved 

employee’s appeal of his letter of reprimand under the 

formal administrative grievance procedure as though the 

Grievance Examiner had not yet conducted his inquiry into 

the matter and to notify Complainant labor organization and 

give it the opportunity to be present at formal discussions 

between management and employees or employee representatives concerning grievances, personnel policies and practices, or other matters affecting general working conditions 

of employees in the unit. (Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky., A/SLMR No. 400)

45 20 00

Jurisdictional Questions

Inasmuch as Activity is now subject to jurisdiction of the 

National Labor Relations Board and because future conduct 

such as that involved in the case would come within purview 

of the National Labor Relations Board’s jurisdiction for 

appropriate remedial action, the Assistant Secretary found 

that the recommended remedial order, including posting 

of a notice to employees, issued by the Administrative Law 

Judge, would no longer effectuate the purposes of Executive 

Order 11491 and was, therefore, unnecessary under the 

present circumstances. (Anaheim Post Office, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 324)

50 00 00

REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST LABOR

ORGANIZATIONS: UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICES

50 04 00

Notification and Dissemination of Remedies

A/S ordered labor organization to post at its national and 

local business offices and in normal meeting places for 60 

consecutive days, a prescribed Notice to All Members and 

Employees, signed by its present national president and 

board chairman. Further, to insure that all controllers are 

made aware of content of the Notice, PATCO-MEBA 

required to mail copy of signed Notice to each of its members and FAA is required to post the Notice at places where 

it customarily posts information to its controllers. (PATCO, 

A/SLMR No. 10)

50 08 00

Advice of Compliance

At such time as PATCO-MEBA believes it can meet 

requirements as labor organization under Sec. 2(e) of EG, 

but in no event sooner than expiration of 60-day posting 

period, it may furnish A/S specific account, in writing, of 

steps taken to comply with his Decision and Order, as well

70
5016 28

as steps taken to insure future compliance with EO and the 

Regs. PATCO-MEBA shall serve copies of such account 

simultaneously upon all other parties to proceeding and furnish A/S with statement of such service. Other parties will 

have five days from such service to file comments with 

A/S. (PATCO, A/SLMR No. 10)

A/S ordered that all future showings of interest submitted 

by PATCO-MEBA be in form of authorization cards dated 

at least 10 days after the posting or the mailing of A/S 

notice to employees or members, whichever is later. 

(PATCO, A/SLMR No. 10)

Upon finding that PATCO-MEBA compiled with Decision 

and Order in A/SLMR No. 10, and took steps to insure 

future compliance with EO and Regs., A/S permitted it 

to use procedures available to labor organizations under 

Sec. 2(e), as of date of his Supplemental Decision and 

Order. (PATCO, A/SLMR No. 51)

50 12 00

Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and Orders

A/S ordered labor organization to take such action as 

is necessary in order to bring Local constitution and by-laws 

into compliance with requirement that membership in said 

Local shall not be denied to any applicant for admission or 

applicant for readmission who previously resigned or removed himself from membership in said Local for any 

reason other than the failure to meet reasonable occupational 

standards uniformly required for admission, or the failure 

to tender initiation fees and dues uniformly required as a 

condition of acquiring and retaining membership. (AFGE, 

Beeville, Texas, A/SLMR No. 294)

50 16 00

Remedies for Improper Conduct

50 16 04 

Interference

Any individuals named in complaints related to PATCO’s 

disqualification as labor organization under Sec. 2(e)(2) of 

EO may refile complaints in their own names nothwithstanding the timeliness proviso of Sec. 203.2 of Regs., provided 

each such complaint is refiled within 30 days of its dismissal. (PATCO, A/SLMR No. 10)

A/S ordered that FAA and PATCO-MEBA be prohibited 

from entering into or giving effect to any dues deduction 

agreements during period that PATCO-MEBA is barred 

from utilizing procedures established under EO. This prohibition shall apply also to PATCO locals having exclusive 

and formal recognition granted under EO 10988. (PATCO, 

A/SLMR No. 10)

Labor organization ordered to post a notice to all its 

members that it will not refuse to accept or honor the 

resignation of any member submitted in accordance with 

its constitution or by-laws. (Local 1858, AFGE [Redstone 

Arsenal, Ala.], A/SLMR No. 275)

Respondent labor organization ordered to cease and 

desist from refusing and failing to accept or honor the 

resignation from membership of an employee. Respondent 

further ordered to honor resignation and to publish in its 

monthly “Bulletin” a statement indicating that involved 

employee was erroneously listed in previous “Bulletins” as

a suspended member when, in fact, he had effectively 

resigned. (Graphic Arts Int’n’I. Union, Local 4B, Wash., 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 359)

50 16 08

Harassment of Employee in Performance of Duties

No entries.

50 16 12

Inducing Management to Coerce an Employee

No entries.

50 16 16 

Strike Activity

PATCO-MEBA lost status as labor organization within 

meaning of Sec. 2(e)(2) of EO because it called or engaged 

in strike, work stoppage, or slowdown, or condoned such 

activity by failing to take affirmative action to prevent or 

stop it. Consequently, A/S will not accept as valid any 

presently pending or future petitions or showings of interest 

filed by, or on behalf of, PATCO until such time as A/S 

has found it to be in compliance with his Decision and 

Order. All pending PATCO petitions, requests or motions 

to intervene, and complaints filed by, or on behalf of, 

PATCO, are dismissed. (PATCO, A/SLMR Nos. 10 and 51)

A/S ordered PATCO-MEBA, its officers, agents, and 

representatives to cease and desist from calling or engaging 

in any strike, work stoppage or slowdown against FAA or 

any other agency of Government of U.S., or from assisting 

or participating in any such strike, work stoppage or slowdown, or from condoning such activity by failure to take 

effective affirmative action to prevent or stop it. (PATCO, 

A/SLMR No. 10)

50 16 20 

Discrimination

No entries.

50 16 24

Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate

No entries.

50 16 28

Denial of Membership

A/S ordered labor organization to cease and desist from; 

(1) giving effect to any provision or section of the Local 

constitution and by-laws to the extent that it requires or calls 

for a two-thirds vote by the members of said labor organization for admission or readmission to membership in Local, 

by any new applicant or any former members of said Local 

who has resigned, or removed himself, from membership 

in said Local; and (2) denying membership to an employee 

in said Local, for any reason other than his failure to meet 

reasonable occupational standards uniformly required for 

admission, or his failure to tender initiation .fees and dues 

uniformly required as a condition of acquiring and retaining 

membership.

A/S further ordered labor organization to reinstate employee to membership in Local, upon application and tender 

of initiation fees and dues uniformly required. (AFGE, 

Beeville, Texas, A/SLMR No. 294)

71
55 12 08

55 00 00

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

55 04 00

Effect on Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

Alleged violations of Standards of Conduct must be processed pursuant to procedures contained in Part 204 of 

Regs., rather than Part 202, which deals with representation 

matters. (R A/S No. 9)

Complaints of violations of Standards of Conduct will 

not delay processing of concurrent representation case. 

(R A/S No. 9)

55 08 00

Procedure

55 08 04

Jurisdiction

Standards of Conduct deal with the conduct of labor 

organizations subject to EO and the rights of members of 

such organizations and are not limited to protecting members 

who are Federal employees. (AFGE, Dallas, Texas, A/SLMR 

No. 292)

Jurisdiction will be asserted over complaint by employee 

of Activity which is part of legislative branch alleging improper removal from position as official of labor organization, where such labor organization also represents employees 

of executive branch. (R A/S No. 36)

55 08 08

Bill of Rights

Complainant precluded any remedy when he voluntarily 

resigned from Respondent Union and expressed lack of 

interest in reinstatement after filing complaint alleging deprivation of members’ proper and equal representation 

through Union’s disregard and dismissal of him as committeeman in violation of Secs. 204.2(a)(1), (2) and (5) of Regs., 

since rights in question apply only to union members. 

Accordingly, A/S dismissed complaint as moot. (SEIU, 

Local 73, 111., A/SLMR No. 159)

Provision in Sec. 204.54 of Regs, that member may be 

required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures, not to 

exceed four-month lapse of time, within his labor organization before filing complaint with A/S is discretionary on 

part of A/S, who may accept Bill of Rights complaint even 

though Complainant has not exhausted labor organization 

hearing procedures for four months, particularly if labor 

organization’s constitution and by-laws do not provide 

reasonable hearing procedures or if no useful purpose would 

be served by requiring four-month exhaustion of remedies. 

(AFGE, Wash., D.C., A/'SLMR No. 164)

ARD’s dismissal of complaint against labor organization 

alleging violation of Bill of Rights provisions of Standards 

of Conduct by, among other things, preventing its paid 

national representative from being candidate for national 

office, was reversed where ARD’s dismissal was based on 

his assessment of merits of case, whereas Sec. 204.58 of 

Regs, provides for dismissal if ARD “determines that a 

reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established 

or that a satisfactory offer of settlement has been made 

. . . .” A/S held that, in absence of clear precedent in similar 

cases under LMRDA, conclusion cannot be reached that

there is no reasonable basis for complaint in this case, and 

accordingly, remanded case for hearing. (R A/S No. 35)

55 08 12

Elections

Proper method for challenging restrictions on candidacy 

for position as delegate to national convention at which 

executive officers will be elected is through complaint filed 

under Sec. 204.63 of Regs, alleging violation of Sec. 204.29, 

Election of Officers. (AFGE, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

164)

Certification of election, conducted under supervision of 

LMWP Director, pursuant >to stipulation of parties, recommended by ALJ as basis for disposition of allegations of 

violations of Sec. 18 of EO and Sec. 204.29 of Regs., 

approved by A/S. (NAPFE, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 

238; AFGE, 10th District, A/SLMR No. 239)

55 12 00

Bill of Rights

55 12 04

Equal Rights

Right to be candidate for office in labor organization is 

not protected by Sec. 204.2(a)(1) of Regs., which grants 

labor organization members various other rights. (AFGE, 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 164)

Labor organization constitutional provision prohibiting 

paid employees from being candidates for elective office in 

labor organization and requiring any announcement of employee’s candidacy or resignation be made at least 30 days 

prior to convening of any national convention does not 

violate any equal rights of labor organization members 

protected by Sec. 204.2(a)(1) of Regs. (AFGE, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 164)

Neither right to be delegate nor right to participate in 

convention “as a delegate” is protected by Sec. 204.2(a)(1) 

of Regs. (AFGE, Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 164)

Labor organization constitutional provision prohibiting 

paid employees from being convention delegates does not 

violate Sec. 204.2(a)(1) of Regs. (AFGE, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 164)

Caucuses and conventions of labor organization at which 

attendance, other than as spectators or visitors, and participation are restricted to properly elected delegates and alternates are not “membership meetings” within meaning of 

Sec. 204.2(a)(1) of Regs., which guarantees labor organization members equal rights at membership meetings. (AFGE, 

Wash., D.C., A/SLMR No. 164)

55 12 08

Freedom of Speech

Provision in collective bargaining agreement between labor 

organization and its employees which prohibits employees, 

some of whom are members of labor organization, from 

being present at caucuses and conventions during nomination 

and election of officers does not violate guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly for labor organization members 

in Sec. 204.2(a)(2) of Regs. Sec. 204.2(a)(2) provides that 

labor organizations may adopt and enforce reasonable rules 

as to responsibility of every member toward organization as 

institution, and this provision is such reasonable rule because

72
60 20 00

it has effect of eliminating potential conflict of interest 

between duty of employee-member to labor organization 

and his use of his position as employee to advance special 

interests of particular candidate or faction within labor 

organization. (AFGE, Wash., D.C., A/SMLR No. 164)

Directive issued by labor organization president which 

prohibits employees of labor organization, including those 

who are members of labor organization, from lobbying for 

or against resolutions coming before national convention or 

campaigning for or against any candidate for national office 

does not violate Sec. 204.2(a)(2) of Regs. Directive is implementation of rule which has effect of keeping employeemembers from becoming involved in national Union politics 

to detriment of Union as whole and thus falls within the 

proviso to Sec. 204.2(a)(2) that freedom of speech and 

assembly for labor organization members granted by that 

section shall not impair right of labor organization to adopt 

and enforce reasonable rules as to responsibility of every 

member toward organization as institution. (AFGE, Wash., 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 164)

Labor organization constitutional provision prohibiting 

paid employees from being candidates for elective office in 

labor organization while remaining on payroll of labor 

organization and requiring that any announcement of employee’s candidacy or resignation be made at least 30 days 

prior to convening of any national convention does not 

violate Sec. 204.2(a)(2) of Regs. (AFGE, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 164)

Labor organization constitutional provision prohibiting 

paid employees from being convention delegates does not 

violate Sec. 204.2(a)(2) of Regs. (AFGE, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 164)

Neither right to be delegate nor right to participate in 

convention “as a delegate” is protected by guarantees of 

freedom of speech and assembly for labor organization 

members in Sec. 204.2(a)(2) of Regs. (AFGE, Wash., D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 164)

55 12 12

Dues, Initiation Fees and Assessments

No entries.

55 12 16

Protection of the Right to Sue

No entries.

55 12 20

Safeguards against Improper Disciplinary Action

An individual who was erroneously admitted to membership in local labor organization and did not meet the 

qualifications for membership in the local or national constitution was not a “member” within the meaning of that term 

as used in Standards of Conduct and was not entitled to the 

protection of Sec. 204.2(a)(5) of Regs, before his name was 

removed from labor organization’s membership rolls. 

(AFGE, Dallas, Texas, A/SLMR No. 292)

60 00 00

GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY

60 04 00

13(a)

No entries.

60 08 00

13(b)

No entries.

60 12 00

13(c)

No entries.

60 16 00

13(d)

Otherwise applicable provision of the Order contained 

in Sec. 13(d) as implemented by Part 205 of the Regs., was 

inoperative as negotiated agreement involved was entered 

into prior to November 24, 1971. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 

Va., A/SLMR No. 290)

60 20 00

13(e)

No entries.

73

TABLE OF DECISIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Alphabetical Listing *

A/SLM R

Title No(s)?

Aberdeen-Edgewood Exchange, Army and Air Force Exchange S e rv ic e .......................................................................... 43

ACTION .................................................................................................................................................................................... 207

Agriculture Marketing Service.................................................................................................................................................... 172

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation S e rv ic e .................................................................................................................137

Agriculture, Department of

Agricultural Marketing S e r v i c e ......................................................................................................................................172

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services-Animal Health Program, Madison, Wise. . . 249

Bee Research Laboratory Complex, Tucson, A rizona.................................................................................................... 369

Black Hills National F o re s t.............................................................................................................................................. 58

Box Elder Civilian Conservation C e n te r.............................................................................................................. ..... . 58

Farmers Home Administation, District of N.J., Del., and Md.................................................................................... 50

Farmers Home Administration, Nashville, Tenn........................................................ .................................................... 205

Forest Service, Angeles National Forest, Pasadena, C a lifo rn ia ............................................................................... 339

Forest Service, Francis Marion and Sumter National F o r e s t.................................................................................... 227

Forest Service, Mark Twain National Forest, Springfield, M isso u ri.......................................................................... 303

Idaho Panhandle, National F o r e s t s .............................................................................................................................. 394

Information Systems, Office of, Kansas City, M isso u ri.............................................................................................. 387

Northern Marketing and Nutrition Research Division, Peoria, 111.....................................(120, FLRC No. 72A-4, 268)

Richard B. Russell Research C e n te r .............................................................................................................................. 189

Santa Fe National Forest, Santa Fe, N.M........................................................................................................................ 88

Schenck Civilian Conservation Center, N.C................................................................................................................... 116

Sierra National F o r e s t ................................................................................................................................................... 156

Soil Conservation Service, Minn........................................................................................................................................ 48

Stabilization and Conservation S e rv ic e ........................................................................................................................ 137

Air Force, Department of

Air Base Wing, 6486th, Hickam Air Field, H a w a ii................................................................................................... 119

Air Force Communications Service (AFCS), 2024th Communications Squadron,

Moody Air Force Base, ........................................................................................................................................... 248

Air Force Defense Language Institute, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas ............................................................... 322

Arnold Engineering Development Center, Air Force Systems Command, Arnold Air

Force Station, Tenn.................................................................................................................................................. ^^5

Combat Support Group, 321st, Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D.............................................................................. 319

Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., Headquarters, Air Force Flight Test C e n te r.......................................................... 255

Grand Forks Air Force Base, 321st Combat Support Group, N.D.............................................................................. 319

Headquarters, Air Force Flight Test Center,

Edwards Air Force Base, Calif................................................................................................................................ 255

Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, N.M.......................... ................................................................................... 235

Keesler Technical Training Center, Keesler Air Force Base, Miss. .......................................................................... 343

Maintenance, Manufacture & Repair Production Branch, Warner Robins

Air Materiel Area, Robins Air Force Base, G e o rg ia .................................................................................... 365, 374

McConnell Air Force Base, K a n s a s .............................................................................................................................

McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California . .............................................................................................. 35b

McGuire Air Force Base, N.J.......................................... • ; • ’ ' ' ‘ 1- ‘ c a o-io

Moody Air Force Base, Ga., Air Force Communications Service (AFCS), 2024th Communications Squadron. . 248

Non-Appropriated Fund Activities, 4756th Air Base Group, Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla........................................ 124

Non-Appropriated Fund Activities, Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla............................................................................A#:, 5?7

Norton Air Force B a s e ............................................................................................................................................. ’

Officers Open Mess, Fort Snelling, Minn........................................................................................................................

1 To facilitate reference, listings in this Table contain only key words in the case title. For complete official case captions, see

Numencal Table ^ Supplement, where the FLRC modified or remanded as A/S decision, the case number of

thp nrEilin? A/S decls^n fA/SLMR No or, in the event of an unpublished Request for Review action, the Area Office (AO) case 

Ju^beT fs e-fosedT^^^^^ the FLRC No. and by the A/SLMR No. of any subsequent A/S decision.

75
Support Group, 321st Combat, Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D...............................................................................

Tactical Air Support Group, 910th, Vienna, O h i o ..................................................................................................... "

Vanderberg 'Air Force Base, Calif....................................................................................................................................

Warner Robins Air Materiel Area, Robins Air Force Base, ......................................................................................... ^^0

436th S.O.W., Air Force Reserve, Grissom Air Force Base, Peru, Ind.......................................................................... 149

926th Tactical Airlift Group, Air Force Reserve Naval Air Station,..........................................................................

Airways Facilities Sector, FAA, Fort Worth, Tex....................................................................................................................

Alabama Air National G u a r d ....................................................................................................................................................

Alamo Exchange Region, Fort Sam Houston, Tex. ...............................................................................................................

Alaskan Exchange System (See: Army and Air Force Exchange Service)

Albuquerque Airway Facilities Sector (A R T C C )....................................................................................................................

Altus Air Force Base E x c h a n g e ..............................................................................................................................................

American Federation of Government Employees, A F L -C IO ..........................................................................................164, 239

BeevUle, T e x a s ...................................................................................................................................................................

Dallas, T e x a s ...................................................................................................................................................................

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858 (Redstone Arsenal, A l a . ) ................................................ 275

Anchorage International/Lake Hood Tower, F A A ...............................................................................................................

Antilles Consolidated Schools, Ceiba, P.R................................................................................................................................

Arkansas National G u a r d ........................................................................................................................................................

Army, Department of

Aberdeen Proving Ground C o m m a n d ......................................................................................................................... 282

Aviation Systems Command Headquarters, U.S. Army, St. Louis, Mo......................................................... 160, 168, 315

Camp McCoy Headquarters, St. Louis, Mo................................................................................................... 118,166,256

Camp McCoy, Sparta, Wise..............................................................................................................................................

Camp McCoy, Wise., Fifth U.S. Army 86th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM),

Area Organizational Maintenance, Shop G - 4 9 .................................................................................................... 244

Corps of E n g in e e rs .............................................................................. .........................................................................

District

Mobile, Ala...................................................................................................................................................... ^06

Philadelphia, Pa..............................................................................................................................................80,90

St. Louis, Mo.............................................................................................................................................. 17,115

Division, New E n g la n d ........................................................................................................................................ ^

Defense Language Institute, East Coast B r a n c h ......................................................................................................... 213

Directorate of Industrial Operations, Headquarters 9th Infantry and Fort L ew is..................................................... 209

Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground C om m and......................................................................................... 286

Electronics Command, Army, Ft. Monmouth, N.J.............................................................. 83, 216, 258, 281, 320 and 395

First Army 83rd Reserve Command (Fort Hayes), Columbus, O h io .......................................................................... 35

Fifth U.S. Army, Camp McCoy, Wise., 86th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM),

Area Organizational Maintenance, Shop G-49 .................................................................................................... 244

Fort

Benning, Ga., U.S. Army Special Services Post Fund and BOQ Billeting F u n d ............................................... 36

Benning, Ga., U.S. Army Infantry Center, Non-Appropriated Fund A c tiv ity ............................................... 188

Eustis, Va., Transportation Center, U.S. A r m y .............................................................................................. 157

Gordon School/Training Center, A r m y .............................................................................................................. 148

Huachuca Medical Dept. Activity, Army, Ft. Huachuca, Ariz......................................................................... 163

Jackson Laundry Facility, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, S.C........................................................ 242

Leonard Wood, Mo., Training Center, A r m y ......................................................................................... 27, 183, 328

Lewis, Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division, Directorate of

Industrial O perations................................................................................................................................... 209

McClellan School/Training Center, A r m y ......................................................................................................... 42

Monmouth Electronics Command, A r m y .................................................................................... 83, 216, 258, 281

Sam Houston, Tex., Alamo Exchange R e g io n .................................................................................................... 199

Wainwright Alaska, Transportation Motor P o o l ............................................................................................... 278

Headquarters and Installation Support Activity (A V SC O M ).................................................................................... 165

Infantry Center, Non-Appropriated Fund Activity, Fort Benning, Ga......................................................................... 188

Material Command, U.S., Red River Army D e p o t.................................................................................................... 131

Materiel Command, Army, Tooele Army Depot, U t a h .............................................................................................. 406

Materiel Command, Automated Logistics Management Systems A g e n c y ..........................................................113,211

Medical Department Activity, Fort Huachuca, Fort Huachuca, Ariz......................................................................... 163

Military Academy, U.S., West Point, N.Y........................................................................................................................ 133

Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J.................................................................................................................... 77, 177

Missile Command, Huntsville, A labam a......................................................................................................................... 367

Natick Laboratories, Army, Natick, Mass.................................................................................................................. 263, 381

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /SL M R

Title

76
Okinawa Army Base C o m m a n d .......................................................................................................... ■...............................243

Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J................................................................................................................................. 40, 41, 203

Red River Army Depot, Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex................................................................187

Reserve Command Headquarters, Camp McCoy, Sparta, Wise., 102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, Mo. . 256, 306

Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, 111.....................................................................................................................................63

Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, C o lo ra d o ............................................................................................................... ......325

Sacramento Army Depot, Sacramento, Calif.......................................................................................................................... 86

Safeguard Logistics Command, and Safeguard Systems C o m m a n d ................................................................................224

Safeguard Systems Command, P.O. Box 1500, Huntsville, A la b a m a .......................................................... ......................288

Savanna Army Depot, Savanna, III., and AMC Ammunition Center, Savanna, 111........................................................... 228

School/Training Center, Army, Ft. Gordon, Ga............................................................................................................. ...... 148

School/Training Center, Army, Ft. McClellan, Ala.................................................................................................... ...... 42

Soldiers’ Home, Washington, D.C........................................................................................................................................... 13

Special Services, Army, Central Post Fund and BOQ Billeting Fund,

Ft. Benning, Ga................................................................................................................................................................ 36

Strategic Communications Command, Fort Huachuca, A riz o n a .....................................................................................351

Tank Automotive Command, Army, Warren, Mich.............................................................................................................. 56

Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, U t a h ......................................................................................................................... 389, 406

Training Center, Army, Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo................................................................................................... 27, 183, 328

Training Center, Infantry, Fort Jackson Laundry Facility, Fort Jackson, -S.C......................................................... ...... 242

Transportation Center, U.S. Army, Ft. Eustis, Va............................................................................................................... 157

U.S. Dependents Schools, European Area (USDESEA) Army D irectorate.......................................................... 138, 260

9th Infantry Division Headquarters, Fort Lewis, Directorate of

Industrial O perations.............................................................................................................................................. ...... 209

Army and Air Force Exchange Service

Aberdeen-Edgewood E x c h a n g e ................................................................................................................................... ...... 43

Alamo Exchange Region, Fort Sam Houston, Tex........................................................................................................ ...... 199

Alaskan Exchange System

Elnjendorf Air Force Base, A l a s k a ................................................................................................................... ...... 32

Fort Greely, A la s k a ..................................... .............................................................. ......................................... ...... 33

Nonappropriated Fund, Fiscal Control O ffic e .......................................................................................................... 28

Southern District and Headquarters, Elmendorf Air Base and Fort Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska . . . 208

Altus Air Force Base E x c h a n g e ...................................................................................................................................

Bay Area Exchange, San Francisco, Calif........................................................................................................................

Capitol Exchange Region, Tacony Warehouse, P hiladelphia.......................................................................................... 392

Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange, Fort Dix, N.J................................................................................................... ......195

Fort

Bliss Area Exchange, Fort Bliss, Tex............................................................................................................................1^4

Bliss Post Exchange, El Paso, Tex........................................................................................................................ ......236

Dix, N.J., Dix-McGuire Consolidated E x ch a n g e.............................................................................................. ......195

Greely Base Exchange, Fort Greely, A la s k a ..........................................................................................................33

Huachuca Exchange Service...................................................................................................................................

Polk, Louisiana.........................................................................................................................................................

Golden Gate Exchange Region, Storage and Distribution Branch, Norton Air Force Base, Calif....................................190

Keesler Consolidated E x c h a n g e ................................................................................................................................... ......1^|

Kirtland Air Force Base Exchange, Dallas, T e x a s ..........................................................................................................371

MacDill Air Force Base, Consolidated Exchange.............................................................................................. - • 29

New England Exchange Region, Westover Air Force B a s e ......................................................................................... ......54

Northwest Area Exchange, Fort Lewis, Wash................................................................................................................. ......338

Norton Air Force Base, Exchange Service Storage and Distribution B r a n c h ................................................................190

Norton Air Force Base Exchange, Norton Air Force Base, Calif.............................................................................. ......191

Richards-Gebaur Consolidated Exchange, Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Mo......................................................219

Southern California Exchange Region, Norton Air Force Base,

San Bernardino, Calif........................................... ..... • • • • • .......................................................... Aio i#;/;

Vandenberg Air Force Base Exchange, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif......................................................... 218, 366

Whiteman Air Force Base Exchange, Knob Noster, Mo....................................................................................................219

White Sands Missile Range Exchange, N.M.........................................................................................................................25

Arnold Engineering Development Center, Air Force Systems Command, Arnold Air Force Station, Tenn....................... ......135

Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, I d a h o .................................................................... ;

Aviation Systems Command Headquarters, Army, St. Louis, Mo. . . . ................................................................160, 168

Belle Chasse, La. Naval Air Station, Air Force Reserve, 926th Tactical Airlift G r o u p ...........................................................221

Bethel Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, I n te r io r .............................................................................................................. ......200

Black Hills National Forest, Department of A g ricu ltu re..........................................................................................................58

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /S L M R

Title No(s).

77
Boston Naval Shipyard, Boston, Mass.......................................................................................................................................... 18

Box Elder Civilian Conservation Center, Department of A g ricu ltu re................................................................................ 58

California Air National Guard Headquarters

146th Tactical Airlift Wing, Van Nuys, Calif.......................................................................................................... 147, 259

163rd Fighter Group, Ontario International Airport, Ontario, Calif.......................................................................... 252

California Army National Guard, 1st Battalion, 250th A rtille ry ........................................................................................... 47

Camp McCoy Headquarters, Army, St. Louis, Mo.................................................................................................... 188,166, 256

Camp McCoy, Wise., Fifth U.S. Army, 86th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM),

Area Organizational Maintenance, Shop G-49 .......................................................................................................... 244

Center for Disease Control, HEW, Atlanta, Ga.................................................................................................................... 76, 132

Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, S.C............................................................................................................................... 1

Chicago Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, Great Lakes R e g io n ................................................ 250

Civil Service Commission

St. Louis Region, St. Louis, Mo......................................................................................................................................... 162

San Francisco R e g i o n .................................................................................................................................................... 175

Coast Guard, U.S., Second Coast Guard D is tr ic t............................................................................................................... 93

Commander Service Force, Atlantic F le e t............................................................................................................................... 78

Commerce, Department of

Economic Development Administration, Southeastern Regional O ffic e ..................................................................... 229

National Oceanic and Atmospheric A dm inistration..................................................................................................... 285

National Ocean Survey, Pacific Marine Center and Atlantic Marine C e n t e r ................................................222

National Weather Service, Central R e g io n .................................................................................................... 151, 331

National Weather Service, Office of Meteorological Operations,

Communications Division, Communications Operating Branch................................................................ 196

Corps of Engineers (See: Army)

Customs, Bureau of (See; Treasury)

Data Management Center, H E W .............................................................................................................................................. 72

Defense, Department of

Air Force, Department of (See: Air Force)

Army, Department of (See: Army)

Army and Air^^orce Exchange Service (See: Army and Air Force)

Defense Mapping Agency

Topographic Center, Providence Office, West Warwick, R.I............................................................................... 310

Defense Supply Agency

Defense Contract Administration Services Region

Akron, Ohio; Columbus, O h i o .................................................................................................................... 372

Atlanta, Ga....................................................................................................................................................... 4 23

Boston, Mass............................................................................................................................... 34, 97, 271, 391

Burlingame, Calif............................................................................................................................................. 247

Columbus, Ohio; Akrori, O h i o ....................................................................................................................' 372

San Francisco, Calif........................................................................................................................................ 112

Tracy, C a lifo rn ia ......................................................................................................................................... 386

Defense Depot, Memphis, Tenn.............................................................................................................................. 107

Defense Electronics Supply Center, Dayton, O hio............................................................................................... 64

Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, Va.................................................................................................... H

Defense Property Disposal Office, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.................................................................... 360

DOD Overseas Dependent S c h o o ls ............................................................................................................................... HO

Joint Tactical Com. Office (Tri-Tac), Ft. Monmouth, N.J............................................................................................... 396

National Guard Bureau (See: National Guard)

Navy, Department of (See: Navy)

Defense Language Institute, East Coast B ra n c h .................................................................................................................... 213

Defense Supply Agency (See: Defense)

Dix-McGuire Consolidated Exchange, Fort Dix, N.J.............................................................................................................. I95

Economic Development Administration, Commerce, Southeastern Regional O ffic e ..................................................... ..... 229

Economic Opportunity, Office of. Region V, Chicago, 111......................................................................................... ..... . 251

Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Headquarters, Air Force Flight Test C e n te r..................................................... 255

Electronics Command (ECOM), U.S. Army, Fort Monmouth, N.J...............................................................1 83^ *216, 258, 281

Elmendorf Air Force Base

Alaskan Exchange S y s te m .............................................................................................................................. 32 208

Nonappropriated F u n d .............................................................................................................. . ’ 2S

Environmental Protection Agency, Perrine Primate L ab o rato ry ............................................................................... * 136

Farmers Home Administration, Nashville, Tenn.................................................................................................................. ’ 205

Farmers Home Administration, District of N.J., Del., and Md......................................................................................... " 50

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A/SLM R

Title No(s).

78
Federal Aviation Administration (See: Transportation)

Federal Health Programs Service, H E W ..................................................................................................................................... 192

Federal Highway Administration, Region 2 ..................................................................... “................................................... 98

Federal Supply Services, GSA, Raritan, N.J. D e p o t ..................................................................................... .......................... 66

Fifth U.S. Army, Camp McCoy, Wise., 86th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM),

Area Organizational Maintenance, Shop G-49 .......................................................... ..................................................... 244

First Army, 83rd Reserve Command (Ft. Hayes), Columbus, O h i o ..................................................................................... 35

Florida Army National Guard and Florida Air National G u a r d .......................................................................................... 37

Forest Service, Francis Marion and Sumter National F o re s ts ............................................................................................... 227

Fort (See: Army; and Army and Air Force Exchange Service)

General Services Administration

Federal Supply Service, Raritan, N.J. D e p o t ..................................... ................................................................ 66

Memphis, Tenn.................................................................................................................■................................................... 100

Public Building Services, Fresno, C a lifo rn ia ..................... ......................................................................................... 293

Public Building Services, San Francisco, C a lifo rn ia .................................................................................................... 39

Region 2, New York, N.Y.............................................................................................................................................. 220, 358

Region 3, Washington, D.C................................................................................................................................................. 347

Region 5, Chicago, 111.......................................................................................................................................................... 265

Region 6, PBS, Kansas City, M is s o u ri......................................................................................................................... 404

Region 7 ..................................................... ......................................................................................................................... 176

Region 9 .................................................................................................................................... ......................................... 333

Region 10, Interagency Motor Pool No. 2, Portland, O re g o n .................................................................................... 146

Transportation and Communications Service, Atlanta, Ga........................................................................................... 109

Geological Survey

Central Region, Publications D iv is io n ......................................................................................................................... 274

Pacific Coast Region, Menlo Park, Calif......................................................................................................................... 143

Georgia Adjutant General, Air Technician Detachment, Dobbins Air Force Base, Ga.,

and Travis Field, Savannah, Ga........................................................................................................................................ 182

Georgia National G u a r d ......................................................................................................................................... ..... 74

Golden Gate Exchange Region, Storage and Distribution Branch, Norton Air Force Base, Calif...................................... 191

Graphic Arts International Union, Local 4B .................................................................... .................................................... 359

Grissom Air Force Base 436th S.O.W., Air Force Reserve .................................................................................................... 149

Headquarters and Installation Support Activity (AVSCOM), A r m y .................................................................................... 165

Health, Education and Welfare, Department of

Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga.................................................................................................................... 76,132

Data Management C e n t e r .............................................................................................................................................. 72

Food and Drug Administration, Newark, N.J.................................................................................................................. 361

Health Services and Mental Health Administration

Federal Health Programs Service ....................................................................................................................108, 192

Maternal and Child Health S erv ice s.............................................................................................................. 108, 192

National Center for Mental Health Services Training and Research, St. Elizabeth^s Hospital ...... 55, 102

Public Health Service Hospital

Boston-Brighton, Mass.............................................................................................................................................. 267

San Francisco, Calif................................................................................................................................................... 82

Regional Office V I ........................................................................................................................................................ 266

Social Security Administration

Albany, N.Y. District Office................................................................................................................................... 70

Bureau of Hearings and A p p e a ls ......................................................................................................................... 142

Morristown, Tenn. Branch O ffic e ......................................................................................................................... 71

Health Services and Mental Health Administration (See: Health, Education and Welfare)

Hickam Air Field, 6486th Air Base Wing, H a w a ii.............................................................................................................. 119

Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, N.M........................................................................................................................... 235

Housing and Urban Development, Department of

Indianapolis, Indiana Area O ffic e ................................................................................................................................... 202

Portland Area O ffic e ...................................................................................................................................................111,153

Region I I ........................................................................................................................................................................

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, Calif............................................................................................................... 62

Illinois Air National Guard, 182nd Tactical Air Support G r o u p .................................................................................... 105, 225

Illinois Air National Guard Technicians, O’Hare International A irp o rt............................................................................... 101

Indian Affairs, Bureau of (See; Interior)

Infantry Center, Non-Appropriated Fund Activity, Fort Benning, Ga.................................................................................... 188

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /S L M R

Title No(s).

79
Interior, Department of 

Geological Survey

Central Region, Publications D iv is io n ................................................................................................................

Pacific Coast Region, Menlo Park, Calif................................................................................................................

Indian Affairs, Bureau of

Bethel Agency, Bethel, A la s k a ...............................................................................................................................

Data Control Center, Albuquerque, N.M...............................................................................................................

Fort Apache Agency, Phoenix, Ariz.........................................................................................................................

Navajo Area, Gallup, N.M........................................................................................................................................

Land Management, Bureau of

District Office, Lakeview, O re g o n .....................................................................................................................

Riverside District and Land O f f ic e .....................................................................................................................

Mines, Bureau of, Denver, Colorado...............................................................................................................................

Mines, Bureau of, Albany, O r e g o n ...............................................................................................................................

National Park Service

National Capital P a r k s ..........................................................................................................................................

JFK Center for the Performing A r t s ..........................................................................................................

St. Louis, Missouri ................................................................

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /S L M R

Title

Statue of Liberty National M o n u m en t...............................................................................................................

Police, National C 

Reclamation, Bureau of

Park Police, National Capital P a r k s ...............................................................................................................................

Boulder City, N evada...............................................................................................................................................

Lower Colorado R eg io n .........................................................................................................................................

Region 4, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, Ogden, U ta h ................................................ 204

Yuma, Arizona .........................................................................................................................................................

Internal Revenue Service (See; Treasury)

Jacksonville Air Traffic Control Center, F A A ....................................................................................................................

Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, Weber Basin, Ogden, U tah .....................................................................................

Justice, Department of

United States Marshal’s Office

Georgia, Northern D is tric t....................................................................................................................................

Illinois, Northern D i s t r i c t ....................................................................................................................................

Keesler Consolidated Exchange, Army and Air Force Exchange S e rv ic e ..........................................................................

Kennedy Space C e n te r ..............................................................................................................................................................

Land Management, Bureau of (See: Interior)

Long Beach Naval S h ip y a rd ...................................................................................................................................................

Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center......................................................................................................................... 283

MacDill Air Force Base Consolidated Exchange, Army and Air Force Exchange S e r v ic e ................................................ 29

Mare Island Naval S h ip y a rd ................................................................................................................................................... 129

Material Command, U.S., Red River Army D e p o t ...............................................................................................................

Material Command Ammunition Center, Savanna, 111.............................................................................................................. 291

Materiel Command, Automated Logistics, Management Systems Agency, A rm y .......................................................... 113, 211

Maternal and Child Health Services, H E W .............................................................................................................................. 1^2

McConnell Air Force Base, K a n s a s .........................................................................................................................................

Miami Airport Traffic Control Tower, F A A ......................................................................................................................... 234

Miami Air Route Traffic Control Center, F A A .................................................................................................................... 234

Military Academy, U.S., West Point, N.Y.................................................................................................................................. 133

Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J.............................................................................................................................. 77, 177

Military Sealift C o m m an d ......................................................................................................................................................... 245

Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center, F A A ............................................................................................................... 233

Minnesota Army National G u a rd .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Mint (See: Treasury)

Mississippi National Guard, Thompson Field and Camp S h e lb y .....................................................................................20, 123

Mobile, Ala. Army Engineer D i s t r i c t .................................................................................................................................... 206

Moody Air Force Base, Ga., Air Force Communications Service (AFCS), 2024th Communications Squadron . . . 248

Natick Laboratories, Army, Natick, Mass............................................................................................................................. • 263

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Audit D ivision................................................................................................................................... (AO CASE No. 46-1848,

FLRC No. 70A-7, 125)

Kennedy Space C e n t e r ................................................................................................................................................... 223

National Alliance of Postal and Federal E m ployees............................................................................................................... 238

National Association of Government Employees Local R5-20, Federal Aviation Science

and Technological Association......................................................................................................................................... 194

80
National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, FAA, Atlantic City, N.J.......................................................................... 15

National Capital Parks, U.S. Park Police, I n te r io r ............................................................................................................... 145

National Center for Mental Health Services, Training and Research, HEW, St. Elizabeth’s H ospital...........................55, 102

National Guard

Alabama Air National G u a r d ......................................................................................................................................... 67

Arkansas National G u a r d .............................................................................................................................................. 53

California Air National Guard Headquarters

146th Tactical Airlift Wing, Van Nuys, Calif.................................................................................................. 147, 259

163rd Fighter Group, Ontario International Airport, Ontario, Calif................................................................... 252

California Army National Guard 1st Battalion, 250th A rtille ry ............................................................................... 47

California National Guard, State Military Forces, Sacramento, Calif.......................................................................... 348

Florida Army National Guard and Florida Air National G u a r d ............................................................................... 37

Georgia, Adjutant General, Air Technician Detachment,

Dobbins Air Force Base, Ga., and Travis Field, Savannah, Ga......................................................................... 182

Georgia National G u a rd ................................................................................................................................................... 74

Illinois Air National Guard, 182nd Tactical Air Support G r o u p .......................................................................... 105, 225

Illinois Air National Guard Technicians, O’Hare International Airport, Chicago, 111................................................ 101

Illinois Army National Guard, 1st Battalion, 202nd Air Defense Artillery, Arlington Heights, 111........................... 370

Minnesota Army National G u a rd ................................................................................................................................... 14

Mississippi National Guard, Thompson Field and Camp S h e lb y ..........................................................................20, 123

New Mexico Air National Guard, Santa Fe, N.M........................................................................................................ 362

Ohio Air National Guard and 179th Tactical Fighter G r o u p .................................................................................... 44

Pennsylvania National Guard, Dept, of Military Affairs.............................................................................................. 376

Pennsylvania National G u a r d ........................................................................................................................................ 9, 254

Tennessee Air National Guard, Nashville, Tenn............................................................................................................. 355

Texas Air National G u a r d ............................................................................................................................................. 336

Vermont, State of. Air National Guard B u r e a u .................................................... .................................................... 397

Virginia National Guard Headquarters, 4th Battalion, 111th A rtille ry .................................................................... 69

Virginia National Guard, Aviation Support F a c ility ................................................................................................... 345

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, D O T .................................................... .................................................... 193

National Labor Relations B o a r d ........................................................................................................................................ 246, 295

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (See; Commerce)

National Park Service (See: Interior)

National Science F o u n d a tio n ................................................................................................................................................... 316

Naval (See: Navy)

Navy, Department of

Boston Naval S h ip y a rd ................................................................................................................................... 18

Bureau of Medicine & Surgery, Great Lakes Naval Hospital, 111................................................................................... 289

Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, S.C.............................................................................................. 1. 302, 394, 403

Commander Service Force, Atlantic F l e e t ................................................................................................................... 78

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, Calif............................................................................................... 62, 373

Long Beach Naval S h ip y a r d ...................................................................................................................................154, 352

Mare Island Naval S h ip y a rd .............................................................................................. (129, FLRC No. 72A-12), 298

Military Sealift C o m m a n d ............................................................................................................................................. 245

Naval Air Reserve Training Unit, Memphis, Tenn........................................................................................................ 106

Naval Air Rework F a c ility .........................................................................................

Alameda, Calif.................................................................................................................................................49, 61, 158

Jacksonville, Fla...................................................................................................................................

Quonset Point, R.1................................................................................................................................................... 215

Naval Air Station

Alameda, Calif........................................................................................................................................................... ”

Chase Field, Beeville, Tex....................................................................................................................................... 29^

Corpus Christi, Tex.................................................................................................................................................. 1^“

Memphis, Millington, Tenn...................................................................................................................................... 346

Moffet Field, Calif................................................................................................................................................... 130

Patuxent River, ........................................................................................................................................................

Quonset Point, R.I.....................................................................................................................................................

Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, M d , .............................................................................................................. 73

Naval Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, R.I...........................................................1 ^ '^ ‘ vt ' ->i’ -.'.’-ri' « a /c

Naval Electronics Systems Command Activity, Boston, Mass............................................. (AO Case No. 31-3371, R A/S

N^o. *2nf FLRC !No. 71A"12)

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Western Division, San Bruno, Calif.............................................................. 264

Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Ky......................................................................................................................... 400

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /SL M R

Title Mo(s).

81
Naval Station, Adak, A la s k a .......................................................................................................................................... 321

Naval Station, Newport, R.1............................................................................................................................................... 326

Naval Training Device Center, Procurement Services Office, Orlando, Fla.................................................................. 140

Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport Laboratory, Newport, R.1....................................................................... 127

Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Calif................................................................................................................... 128, 297

Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Va........................................................................................................ 30, 139, 181, 307

Navy Exchange, Mayport, Fla............................................................................................................................................ 24

Navy Exchange, Quonset Point, R.1................................................................................................................................... 180

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norf9lk, Va................................................................................................................................ 31

Office of the S e c re ta ry .................................................................................................................................................... 393

Philadelphia Naval S h ip y a r d ......................................................................................................................................... 382

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.............................................................................................................................................. 2, 241

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash.................................................... .................................................... 332, 375

Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Mass................................................................................................................... 390

New England Exchange Region, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Westover Air Force B ase................................ 54

New Jersey Department of D e fe n se ......................................................................................................................... 121,169,323

New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, F A A ............................................................................................................... 184

Non-Appropriated Fund Activities, Ft. Bragg, N.C.............................................................................................................. . 284

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Va................................................................................................................................... 31, 290

Northern Marketing and Nutrition Research Div., Department of Agriculture, Peoria, 111................................................... 120

Norton Air Force B a s e .............................................................................................................................................................. 261

Norton Air Force Base, Exchange Service Storage and Distribution B ra n c h ..................................................................... 190

Norton Air Force Base Exchange.............................................................................................................................................. 191

Office of Economic O pportunity.............................................................................................................................................. 334

Ohio Air National Guard and 179th Tactical Fighter G r o u p ............................................................................................... 44

Overseas Dependent Schools, D O D ......................................................................................................................................... 110

Pennsylvania National G u a r d ................................................................................................................................................... 9, 254

Perrine Primate Laboratory, Environmental Protection A g e n c y .......................................................................................... 136

Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J........................................................................................................................................... 40, 41, 203

Portsmouth Naval S h ip y a r d ................................................................................................................................................... 2, 241

Postal Service, U.S.

Anaheim Post Office, Calif................................................................................................................................................. 324

Berwyn Post Office, 111........................................................................................................................................................ 272

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, Inc........................................................................................................ 10, 51

Public Building Services, GSA, Fresno, Calif............................................................................................................................ 293

Public Building Services, GSA, San Francisco, Calif............................................................................................................... 39

Public Health Service Hospital (See: Health, Education and Welfare)

Reclamation, Bureau of

Region 4, Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, Ogden, U tah ...........................................................204

Red River Army Depot, Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Tex..................................................................... 187

Richard B. Russell Research C e n te r......................................................................................................................................... 189

Richards-Gebauer Consolidated Exchange, Richard-Gebaur Air Force Base, Mo............................................................... 219

Richmond Air Traffic Control Tower (Byrd Tower), F A A .................................................................................................... 232

Roanoke Air Traffic Control T o w e r .........................................................................................................................................232

Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, 111........................................................................................................................................ 63

Sacramento Army Depot, Sacramento, Calif.............................................................................................................................. 86

Safeguard Logistics Command, Army, and Safeguard Systems C om m and..................................................................... 224, 288

San Francisco Bay Area E x c h a n g e ......................................................................................................................................... 79

Santa Fe National F o r e s t ........................................................................................................................................................ 88

Savanna Army Depot, Savanna, 111. and AMC Ammunition Center, Savanna, 111............................................................... 228

Schenck Civilian Conservation Center, Department of A griculture..................................................................................... 116

Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, General Services Employees Union, Local No. 7 3 ..................... 159

Sierra National F o r e s t .............................................................................................................................................................. 156

Small Business Administration, Miami District O ffic e ......................................................................................................... 314

Social Security Administration (See: Health, Education and Welfare)

Soil Conservation Service, Minn.................................................................................................................................................. 48

Soldiers’ Home, U.S., Washington, D.C.................................................................................................................................... 13

Southern California Exchange Region, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Norton Air Force B ase........................... 26

Statue of Liberty National Monument, National Park Service, In te rio r............................................................................... 171

Tactical Fighter Group, 179th, Ohio Air National G u a r d .................................................................................................... 44

Tank Automotive Command, Army, Warren, Mich................................................................................................................. 56

Training Center Engineer, Army, Headquarters, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.......................................................................... 183

Training Center, Infantry, Army, Fort Jackson Laundry Facility, Fort Jackson, S.C.......................................................... 242

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /SL M R

Title No(s).

82
Transportation Center, Army, Fort Eustis, Va......................................................................................................................... 157

Transportation, Department of

Federal Aviation A dm inistration...............................................................................................................................122, 173

Aeronautical C e n t e r .....................................................................................................(117, FLRC No. 72A-1, 253)

Airways Facilities Division, Eastern R e g i o n .................................................................................................... 94

Airways Facilities Sector, Fort Worth, Tex.......................................................................................... ..... 230

Albuquerque Airway Facilities Sector (A R T C C ).................................................................................... • 277, 342

Anchorage Air Traffic C o n tro l.............................................................................................................................. 379

Anchorage International/Lake Hood T o w e r .................................................................................................... 178

Atlanta Airway Facility, Sector 12, Atlanta, G e o r g ia .................................................................................... 287

Atlanta Air Traffic Control T o w e r .................................................................................................................... 300

Eastern Region, Boston ARTCC, Nashua, N.H................................................................................................... 273

Flight Inspection District Office, Battle Creek, Mich.......................................................................................... 313

Great Lakes Region, Chicago Airports District O ffic e .................................................................................... 250

Houston Area Office — Southwest R e g io n ......................................................................................................... 126

Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control C e n te r .............................................................................................. 194,231

Kansas City Air Route Traffic Control Center, Olathe, K a n s a s .................................................................... 353

Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control C e n te r............................... ’................................................................... 283

Management Systems, Office of, Washington, D.C.............................................................................................. 399

Miami Airport Traffic Control T o w e r .............................................................................................................. 234

Miami Air Route Traffic Control C e n t e r ......................................................................................................... 234

Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control C e n t e r .............................................................................................. 233

National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, Atlantic Qty, N.J......................................................... 15, 329

. National Capital Airports, Bureau o f ..............................................................................................................91, 405

New York Air Route Traffic Control C e n te r ................................................................................................... 184

Richmond Air Traffic Control Tower (Byrd T o w e r)......................................................................................... 232

Roanoke Air Traffic Control T o w e r ................................................................................................................... 232

Tulsa Airway Facilities Sector, Tulsa, Okla. .................................................................................................... 364

Washington Air Route Traffic Control C e n te r .............................................................................................. ..... 232

Federal Highway Administration, Region 2 .............................................................................................................. 98

National Highway Traffic Safety A dm inistration........................................................................................................ ^93

Treasury, Department of 

Customs, Bureau of

Boston, Mass................................................................................................................................................... ..... •

Region IV, Miami, Fla.............................................................................................................................................

Region V, New Orleans, La...............................................................................................................' ' ‘ Am oct

Region IX, Chicago, 111.......................................................................................................................................

Washington, D.C. ...................................................................................................................................................

Division of Disbursement, Birmingham, Ala................................................................................................................... ^ '

International Revenue Service

Birmingham D is tr ic t.............................................................................................................................................

Chicago D i s t r i c t .......................... ........................................................................................................................

Fresno Service Center, Fresno, Calif....................................................................................................................

Indianapolis D is tr ic t.............................................................................................................................................

Jacksonville D is tr ic t.............................................................................................................................................

National Office, Office of International O p eratio n s.........................................................................................

New Orleans D istric t.............................................................................................................................................

Western R e g i o n ..................................................................................................... .............................................

Western Service Center, Ogden, U t a h ..............................................................................................................

Mint, Bureau o f .............................................................................................................................................................

Mint, Philadelphia, Pa.......................................................................................................................................................

Public Debt, Bureau of. Wash., D.C.................................................................................................................................

Regional Counsel, Office of, Western R e g io n ..............................................................................................................

U.S. Savings Bonds Division . . . • • ............................................................................... ,^7

U.S. Savmgs Bonds Division, Wise. State Office, Milwaukee, Wise..............................................................................

Tyndall Air Force Base, Non-Appropriated Fund Activities . . • • • .....................................................................

Tyndall Air Force Base, Non-Appropriated Fund ActivUies, 4756th A^Base G r o u p ............................................... .124

U.S. Dependent Schools, European Area (USDESEA), Dept, of Army D irectorate..................................................... 138, 260

United States Marshal’s Office

Georgia, Northern District ..............................................................................................................................................

Illinois, Northern D i s t r i c t ............................................................................................................................................. .

U.S. Park Police, National Capital Parks, I n te r io r......................................................... ....................................................

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /SL M R

Title No(s).

83
Vandenberg Air Force Base Exchange, Vandfnberg Air Force Base, Calif.......................................................................... 218

Veterans Administration

Benefits Office, Wash., D.C.................................................................................................................................................. 357

C en ter..........................................................................................................' . . . .

Bath, New Y o r k .................................................................................................................................................... 335

Mountain Home, Tenn............................................................................................................................................... 89

Togus, M a i n e ......................................................................................................................................................... 84

Washington, D.C........................................................................................................................................................ 385

Wood, Wise................................................................................................................................................................. 68

Hospital

Augusta, Ga................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Brecksville, O h i o ....................................................... (AO Case No. 53-4156, R A/S No. 18, FLRC No. 72A-9)

Brockton, Mass................................................................................................................................................ 21

Buffalo, N.Y............................................................................................................................................................... 60,96

Butler, Pa.................................................................................................................................................................... 103

Charleston, S.C.......................................................................................................................................................... 87

Columbia, S.C..............................................................' ............................................................................................ 368

Downey, 111. * . ......................................................................................................................................................... 81

East Orange, N.J.................................................................................................................................................. 92,311

Hines, 111..................................................................................................................................................................... 85

Lexington, Ky............................................................................................................................................................. 22

Muskogee, Okla......................................................................................................................................................... 301

Pittsburgh, Pa............................................................................................................................................................. 104

Portland, O re g o n ................................................................................................................................................... 308

Tampa, Fla.................................................................................................................................................................. 330

Togus, M a i n e ........................................................................................................................................................ 317

Wadsworth Hospital Center, Los Angeles, Calif.................................................................................................... 388

Regional Office, Newark, N.J............................................................................................................................................. 38

Veterans Benefits Office ......................................................................................................................................... 296

Vienna, Ohio, 910th Tactical Air Support Group (A F R E S )............................................................................................... 12

Virginia National Guard Headquarters, 4th Battalion, 11th A rtille ry ............................................................................... 69

Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center, F A A .............................................................................................................. 232

Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, Ogden, U ta h .................................................................................... 204

Whiteman Air Force Base Exchange, Knob Noster, Mo......................................................................................................... 219

White Sands Missile Range Exchange, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, N.M.......................................................... 25

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /SL M R

Title No(s).

84
TABLE OF DECISIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Numerical Listing, Dates of Issuance, and Sections of Digest Involved

A/SLMR No., Case Nome Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

1. Charleston Naval S h ip y a rd ............................................................................................................... 05 24 00; 30 04 00:

( 11-3-70)

35 04 04; 35 08 08;

35 08 12; 45 04 00;

45 08 00; 45 16 04

2. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Apprentice Training S c h o o l.................................................... 20 04 04

(12-23-70)

3. The Veterans Administration Hospital, A u g u s t a ....................................................................

(12-29-70)

4. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services Region (DCASR), .

Atlanta, Georgia 

(1-15-71)

5. United States Army Engineer Division, New E n g la n d ............................................................... 20 12 08; 20 12 20;

(1-15-71)

6. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station, Alameda, C a lifo rn ia ..........................................

(1-15-71)

7. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile D is tr ic t.........................................................

(1-15-71)

8. United States Naval Construction Battalion C e n te r ....................................................................

(1-15-71)

9. Pennsylvania National Guard (Hunt Armory) 

(1-25-71)

10. Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organizati 

(1-29-71)

20 04 04; 20 12 60

20 12 08; 20 12 20;

20 24 12; 25 04 04

20 04 08; 20 16 16;

20 16 20; 25 04 08

10 24 12; 20 12 60;

20 16 08

20 04 04; 20 16 04

20 08 12; 20 12 60

05 04 00; 40 04 00;

40 08 00; 40 20 00;

50 04 00; 50 08 00;

50 16 04; 50 16 16

20 04 04

(2-5-71)

12. United States Department of the Air Force, 910th Tactical Air Support Group (AFRES), .

Youngstown Municipal Airport, Vienna, Ohio

(2-12-71)

13. U.S. Soldiers’ Home, Washington, D.C.........................................................................................

(2-22-71)

14. Minnesota Army National G u a r d ................................................................................................... 20 08 12; 20 24 12

(2-22-71)

15. Federal Aviation Administration, National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center (NAFEC), 20 04 12; 20 12 32;

Atlantic City, New Jersey 20 12 44; 20 12 52

(3-3-71)

16. I n t e r n a l Revenue Service, New Orleans D is tric t............................................................................................................................... 20 12 02; 20 12 40

(3-18-71)

1 Listing includes all Sections involved except Section 20 20 00, “Employee Categories and Classifications,” in which entries are 

listed alphabetically. In this connection, it should be noted that those decisions which reflect no digest entries are, in fact, digested 

under Section 20 20 00.

85
17. Department of the Army, St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri . . . 20 12 52; 20 24 04; 

(3-18-71) 20 2412

18. Boston Naval Shipyard, Navy D ep artm en t..................................................................................... 2016 04

(3-30-71)

19. United States Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of E n g in eers..................... 20 04 04

(3-30-71)

20. Mississippi National Guard, 172nd Military Airlift Group (Thompson Field) and .... 05 08 00; 15 28 00 

Mississippi National Guard (Camp Shelby)

(4-2-71)

21. Veterans Administration Hospital, Brockton, M assachusetts..................................................... 10 32 00; 15 20 00

(4-2-71)

22. Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Hospital, Lexington, Kentucky .... 20 04 04; 20 12 08 

(4-5-71)

23. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services Region, Atlanta, . . . 20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

Defense Contract Administration Services District, Birmingham 20 04 12

(4-7-71)

24. Department of the Navy, Navy Exchange, Mayport, F lo r id a .....................................................

(4-21-71)

25. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, White Sands Missile Range Exchange.......................... 20 04 16

White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico

(4-21-71)

26. Southern California Exchange Region, Army and Air Force Exchange Service..........................

Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California

(4-21-71)

27. United States Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,

Nonappropriated Fund Branch, Directorate of Personnel and Community Activities,

Building 344, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

(4-21-71)

28. Nonappropriated Fund (NAF), Fiscal Control Office, A C X -N ,................................................ 20 04 16

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska

(4-21-71)

29. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, MacDill Air Force Base Consolidated Exchange . . 05 28 00; 15 24 00; 

(4-21-71) 20 0416; 2012 56

30. United States Department of the Navy, United States Naval Weapons S ta tio n ,.....................

Yorktown, Virginia

(4-22-71)

31. Norfolk Naval S h ip y a r d ............................................................................................................... 25 08 04; 25 0812;

(4-26-71) 25 08 16; 25 08 20;

25 08 24

32. Alaskan Exchange System, Southern District and Headquarters, Elmendorf Air Force Base . 20 04 16; 20 24 08; 

and Fort Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska 25 08 16 

(4-30-71)

33. Alaskan Exchange System, Base Exchange, Fort Greely, A la s k a ................................................ 20 04 16

(5-4-71)

34. Defense Supply Agency, DCASR Boston-Quality A ssu ran ce..................................................... 10 16 00; 15 28 00

(5-7-71)

35. First U.S. Army, 83rd Army Reserve Command (ARCOM), U.S. Army Support Facility . . 20 12 08 

(Fort Hayes), Columbus, Ohio

(5-10-71)

36. United States Army Special Services, Central Post Fund, Fort Benning, Georgia..................... 20 04 04; 20 12 64

and United States Army, BOQ Billing Fund, Fort Benning, Georgia

(5-10-71)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /S L M R No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

86
NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

/Vo. Core Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date issued Involved^

37. Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Florida Army National Guard.......................... 20 08 12

and Florida Air National Guard, 125th Fighter Group 

(5-11-71)

Office, Newark, New J e r s e y ................................................ 25 08 08; 25 12 08

39- General Services Administration, Public Building Services, San Francisco, California . . . 20 24 12

40. Department of the Army, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New J e r s e y ............................................... 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 0412; 2012 60

41. Department of the Army, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New J e r s e y ............................................... 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 0412; 2012 12

42. United States Army School/Training Center, Fort McClellan, A labam a..................................... 30 20 00; 35 08 04;

35 24 00; 35 28 08;

35 28 28; 35 28 32;

4516 04; 45 16 20

43. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Aberdeen-Edgewood E x c h a n g e ................................ 15 20 00

(5-20-71)

44. Adjutant General Department, State of Ohio, Air National Guard, and National Guard . . 20 04 04; 20 08 12; 

Bureau Adjutant General Department, State of Ohio, 179th Tactical Fighter Group 20 12 60 

(5-20-71)

45. Treasury Department, United States Mint, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..................................... 10 20 00; 10 24 12;

(5-20-71) 10 32 00; 20 04 04

46. National Aeronautics and Space A dm inistration......................................................................... 15 08 04; 20 04 04;

(6- ^0-71) 20 04 08; 20 04 12;

20 12 64

47. California Army National Guard 1st Battalion, 250th Artillery Air D e fe n se .......................... 30 24 00; 35 08 08:

(6-1-71) 3512 00

48. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation S e rv ic e ..........................................

(6-1-71)

49. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, C a lifo rn ia .......................... 20 04 04; 20 12 64

(6-2-71)

50. District of New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, Farmers Home Administration, Department 

of Agriculture

(5-27-71)

51. Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, Inc.................................................................... 50 08 00

(6-4-71)

52. Internal Revenue Service, Indianapolis D is tr ic t......................................................................... 20 12 40

(6-7-71)

53. Department of Defense, Arkansas National G u a r d .................................................................... 35 08 04; 45 16 04

(6-8-71)

54. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, New England Exchange Region, Westover Air Force 

Base, Chicopee, Massachusetts

(6-8-71)

55. National Center for Mental Health Services, Training and R esearc h .......................................... 10 24 12

(6-10-71)

56. Army Materiel Command, Army Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan .... 25 08 08; 25 08 12; 

(6-15-71) 25 08 20

57. Internal Revenue Service, Office of the Regional Commissioner, Western Region .... 20 12 28; 2012 44 

(6-15-71)

58. United States Department of Agriculture, Black Hills National Forest a n d ............................... 15 12 00; 20 04 04;

Box Elder Civilian Conservation Center 20 12 08

(6-16-71)

87
NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A/SLM R No., Case Name

and Date Issued

59. U.S. Nav^ Department, Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, F lo r id a ................................

(6-18-71)

60. Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Hospital, Buffalo, New Y o r k .....................

(6-18-71)

61. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility, Naval Air Station, Alameda, California . 

(6-23-71)

62. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Department of the Navy, San Francisco, California . . . 

(6-24-71)

63. U.S. Department of the Army, Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, Illin o is ...........................

(6-24-71)

64. Defense Supply Agency (DSA), Defense Electronics Supply Center (DESC), Dayton, Ohio . 

(6-25-71)

65. United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Customs, Region V, New Orleans, Louisiana 

(6-29-71)

66. General Services Administration, Federal Supply Services, Raritan Depot, Edison, New Jersey 

(6-29-71)

67. Alabama Air National G u a r d ....................................................................................................

(6-30-71)

68. Veterans Administration Center, Wood, W isco n sin ...............................................................

(6-30-71)

69. Virginia National Guard Headquarters, 4th Battalion, 111th A rtille ry ................................

(6-30-71)

70. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration.....................

District Office, Albany, New York

(7-1-71)

71. Social Security Administration, Morristown, Tennessee Branch O ffic e .....................................

(7-1-71)

72. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of the Secretary.....................................

Data Management Center

(7-2-71)

73. United States Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station and Naval Air Test Center, . . . 

Patuxent River, Maryland

(7-2-71)

74. Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Adjutant General, State of Georgia . . . 

(7-12-71)

75. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility, Naval Air Station.....................................

Jacksonville, Florida

(7-12-71)

76. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease C o n tro l,..........................

Atlanta, Georgia

(7-12-71)

77. Department of the Army, Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New J e r s e y ..........................

(7-16-71)

78. Commander Service Force, U.S. Atlantic F l e e t ..........................................................................

(7-19-71)

79. Bay Area E x c h a n g e ..............................................................................................

(7-20-71)

80. U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, Corps of E n g in eers.....................

(7-21-71)

81. Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Hospital, Downey, Illinois 

(7-21-71)

Sections) of Digest

Involved ^

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12; 20 12 64

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12; 20 12 64

15 16 00; 15 24 00;

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12; 20 12 64

20 16 04

20 16 04

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12; 20 12 12

05 08 00; 10 28 00;

20 04 04; 20 12 64

10 24 12; 20 04 08;

20 16 04

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12

15 12 00; 20 04 16

10 04 12

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12

20 12 08; 20 12 32

20 04 04; 20 16 04

20 08 12; 20 24 04;

20 24 12

20 04 04; 20 04 12;

20 12 64

15 28 00

15 04 00; 15 08 04;

20 12 08; 20 2412

20 12 64

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12

10 24 12; 15 16 00

05 32 00; 25 08 08

88
82. United States Public Health Service Hospital, Department of Health.......................................... ......20 04 04 ; 20 04 08;

Education, and Welfare 20 04 12

(7-22-71)

83. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Electronics C o m m a n d ,............................................... ...... 10 28 00; 20 04 04;

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 20 04 16; 20 24 12

84. Veterans Administration Center, Togus, M a i n e ..................................... 2016 04

(7-22-71)

85. The Veterans Administration Hospital, Hines, I llin o is............................................................... 20 16 04

(7-26-71)

86. Department of the Army, Sacramento Army Depot, Sacramento, C a lifo rn ia ..................... 15 28 00

(7-27-71)

87. Veterans Administration Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina.................................................... 30 04 00; 30 16 00

(8-3-71) 35 08 04; 35 28 08

35 28 28; 45 16 04 

45 16 20

88. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Region Forester Office, Forest Services, Region 3, . . . 20 12 08; 20 16 12

Forest Services, Region 3,

Santa Fe National Forest, Santa Fe, New Mexico 

(8-4-71)

89. Veterans Administration Center, Mountain Home, T e n n e sse e ............................................... 10 24 12: 20 16 04

(8-9-71)

90. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania . . . 20 12 32 

(8-10-71)

91. Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of National Capital A irp o rts ..................................... 20 04 16

(8-10-7U

92. Veterans Administration Hospital, East Orange, New J e r s e y .................................................... 20 16 04; 20 16 08

(8-19-71)

93. U.S. Coast Guard, Second Coast Guard D is tr ic t......................................................................... 20 04 04; 20 12 48;

(8-20-71) 2012 56; 2012 60;

20 24 04

94. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airway Facilities .... 10 28 00; 20 16 16 

Division, Eastern Region

(8-20-71)

95. Volunteers In Service To America (V is ta )....................................................................................

(8-30-71)

96. Veterans Administration Hospital, Buflalo, New Y o r k ...............................................................

(8-30-71)

97. Defense Supply Agency, DCASR Boston-Quality A ssu ran ce.................................................... 20 04 08

(8-31-71)

98. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Region 2 and .... 100800; 200808; 

Bureau of Motor Car Safety 20 12 28 

(9-30-71)

99. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Area, Gallup, New Mexico . . . 10 12 00; 10 16 00; 

(10-19-71) 10 24 04; 10 24 08;

10 28 00; 2012 08

100. General Services Adniinistration, Memphis, T en n essee............................................................... 25 04 08; 25 12 08

(10-19-71)

101. Illinois Air National Guard Technicians, O’Hare International A ir p o r t,............................... 15 28 00

Chicago, Illinois

(10-26-71)

102. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Health Services & M e n ta l.......................... 20 16 16; 20 24 04;

Health Administration, National Center for Mental Health Services, 20 24 12

Training and Research, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital

(10-28-71)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /S IM R No.. Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved»

89
NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A/SLM R No., Case Name

and Date Issued

Section(s) of Digest

Involved ^

103. Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Hospital, Butler, Pennsylvania .... 

(10-29-71)

10 16 00; 10 24 04

104. Veterans Administration Hospital, Leech Farm Road, Pittsburgh, P ennsylvania.....................

(10-29-71)

10 24 12

105.

(10-29-71)

20 04 16;

25 16 00;

25 12 04;

25 20 00

106. United States Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Naval Air . . . . . .

Reserve Training Unit, Memphis, Tennessee

(11-3-71)

30 16 00;

35 24 00;

35 28 28;

45 16 16

35 08 04;

35 28 12;

45 16 04;

107. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Depot, Memphis, T en n e ssee................................................

(11-19-71)

20 16 04; 20 24 08

108. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), Health Services a n d ..........................

Mental Health Administration (HSMHA),

Maternal and Child -Health Services 

(11-22-71)

15 28 00

109. General Services Administration, Transportation and Communications Services.....................

Atlanta, Georgia 

(11-22-71)

20 04 04; 20 12 64

110.

(11-29-71)

10 24 12;

20 12 60

10 28 00;

111. Portland Area Office, Department of Housing and Urban D evelopm ent................................

(11-30-71)

15 28 00; 20 04 16

112. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services Region (DCASR) . . .

San Francisco

(11-20-71)

15 08 04;

20 04 08;

20 08 08;

20 12 40

20 04 04;

20 04 12;

20 08 12;

113. Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, Automated L o g istic s..........................

Management Systems Agency 

(12-8-71)

25 12 04

114. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Capital P a r k s ..........................

(12-9-71)

20 04 04;

20 04 12

20 04 08;

115. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, M isso u ri.....................................

(12-13-71)

20 04 04;

20 04 12

20 04 08;

116. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Schenck C iv ilia n ..........................................

Conservation Center, North Carolina 

(12-16-71)

15 16 00;

20 04 04;

20 24 04;

15 28 00;

20 12 08;

20 24 08

117. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation A dm inistration..........................................

Aeronautical Center 

(12-17-71)

15 12 00;

30 24 00;

35 08 12;

45 16 04

30 04 00;

35 08 04;

45 12 00;

118. Department of the Army, Headquarters, Camp McCoy, W isco n sin .....................................

St. Louis Metropolitan Area, St. Louis, Missouri 

(12-21-71)

15 28 00

119. United States Air Force, 6486th Air Base Wing, Hickam Air Field, H a w a ii..........................

(12-22-71)

20 04 04; 20 12 60

120. United States Department of Agriculture, Northern Marketing and N u tritio n .....................

Research Division, Peoria, Illinois 

(12-23-71)

05 04 00; 25 12 04

121. New Jersey Department of D e fe n s e ..............................................................................................

(12-27-71)

25 20 00

122. Federal Aviation Administration, Department of T ran sp o rtatio n..........................................

(12-27-71)

10 24 00;

20 08 08;

20 04 04;

20 12 60

90
NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

ft

123. Mississippi National Guard, 172nd Military Airlift Group (Thompson F i e l d )..................... 20 04 04; 2012 60;

and Mississippi National Guard (Camp Shelby) ‘ 2012 64

(1-13-72)

124. United States Air Force, Department of Defense, Non-Appropriated F u n d ..................... 20 04 08; 20 04 12

Activities, 4756th Air Base Group, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida

(1-13-72)

125. NASA Management Audit O f f i c e ............................................................................................... 05 08 00; 15 12 00

(1-24-72)

126. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, . . . , . ' ..................... 30 12 08; 35 12 00

Houston Area Office — Southwest Region, Houston, Texas

(1-24-72)

.127. Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport Laboratory, Newport, Rhode Island . . . . 10 24 12

(1-25-72)

128. Department of the Navy, United States Naval Weapons Center............................................... 25 20 00

China Lake, California

(1-28-72)

129. Department of the Navy, Mare Island.Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, C a lifo rn ia .......................... 25 20 00

(1-28-72)

130. United States Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, C a lifo rn ia .................................................... 20 16 04

(1-31-72)

131. United States Department of Defense, United States A r m y , ............................................... 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

United States Material Command, Red River Army Depot 20 12 64; 20 24 04;

(1-31-72) 20 2412

132. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for D is e a s e ..................................... 20 04 12; 20 16 20

Control, Atlanta, Georgia

(2-9-72)

133. Department of the Army, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York . . . 1512 00; 15 24 00;

(2-28-72) 20 16 04

134. Department of the Air Force, McConnell Air Force Base, K a n s a s ..................................... 05 04 00; 25 20 00

(2-28-72)

135. Department of the Air Force, Arnold Engineering Development C e n te r ,.......................... 05 04 00; 10 32 00

Air Force Systems Command, Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee

(2-28-72)

136. Environmental Protection Agency, Perrine Primate L a b o ra to ry ............................... .. . . . 30 08 00; 3016 00;

(2-29-72) 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

45 16 08

137. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization a n d ............................... 25 08 28

Conservation Service

(2-29-72)

138. Department of the Army Directorate, United States Dependent Schools, ....... 30 12 08; 30 28 00;

European Area (USDESEA),APO, New York 35 24 00; 35 28 08

(2-29-72)

139. Department of the Navy and the U.S. Naval Weapons S ta tio n ............................................... 05 36 00; 15 20 00;

(3_6 72) 30 08 00; 301212;

35 08 04; 3512 00;

35 20 00; 45 04 00;

4512 00; 4516 04

140. Department of the Navy, Naval Training Device C e n te r ,......................................................... 20 04 04; 20 12 12

Procurement Services Office, Orlando, Florida

(3-20-72)

141. I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e Service, National Office, Office of International O p eratio n s..................... 20 04 04; 2012 32

(3-20-72)

142. Social Security Administration, Bureau of Hearings and A p p e a ls .......................................... 05 04 00

(3-21-72)

A/SLM R No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

91
143. U.S. Department of the Interior, Pacific Coast Region, G eological.......................................... 25 08 16

Survey Center, Menlo Park, California

(3-21-72)

144. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Keesler Consolidated E x c h a n g e ...................................... 35 28 08; 35 28 20;

(3-28-72) 35 28 24; 40 08 00;

40 28 00

145. Department of the Interior, United States Park Police, National Capital P a r k s ..................... ...... 20 04 04

(3-29-72)

146. General Services Administration, Region 10, Interagency Motor P o o l ..................................... ...... 10 12 00; 10 24 12;

No. 2, Portland, Oregon 20 04 08; 20 0412

(3-29-72) 20 16 08; 20 16 16;

20 24 04; 20 2412

147. California Air National Guard Headquarters, 146th Tactical Airlift Wing.......................................15 28 00

Van Nuys, California

(4-25-72)

148. U.S. Army School/Training Center, Fort Gordon, G e o rg ia ............................................................30 28 00; 35 28 08

(4-25-72)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A/SLM R No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

149. United States Department of the Air Force, 434th S.O.W., Air Force Reserve..........................

Grissom Air Force Base, Peru, Indiana 

(4-27-72)

20 16 08

150. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, T e x a s.....................................

(4-27-72)

10 24 12; 20 16 04

151. National Weather Service, Central R e g io n ....................................................................................

(4-28-72)

20 04 08; 

20 04 16; 

20 12 28

20 04 12; 

20 08 08;

152. Treasury Department, Bureau of Customs, Region I V ...............................................................

(4-28-72)

10 24 12; 

20 16 16;

15 08 00; 

20 24 08

153. Portland Area Office, Department of Housing and Urban D evelopm ent...............................

(5-9-72)

20 12 36

154. Long Beach Naval S h ip y a r d .........................................................................................

(4-28-72)

30 12 16; 

35 12 00; 

35 28 08;

35 08 04; 

35 24 00; 

45 16 20

155. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, F lo r id a ..........................

(5-8-72)

30 28 00; 

35 16 00

35 08 04;

156. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sierra National F o r e s t..........................................

(5-9-72)

20 04 04; 

20 04 12;

20 04 08; 

20 12 60

157. U.S. Army Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, V irg in ia .........................................................

(5-11-72)

25 08 28

158. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility, NAS, Alameda, California .... 

(5-11-72)

20 04 04; 

20 04 12;

20 04 08; 

20 12 64

159. General Service Employees Union. Local No. 73, Affiliated With S e rv ic e ...............................

Employees International Union, AFL-CIO 

(5-17-72)

55 08 08

160. Headquarters, U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, M isso u ri..........................

(5-18-72)

10 04 08; 

10 04 20

10 04 16;

161. United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, Western Region . . 

(5-18-72)

05 08 00; 

20 12 28

10 32 00;

162. St. Louis Region, United States Civil Service Commission, St. Louis, Missouri . . , 

(5-23-72)

05 08 00; 

15 24 00;

10 32 00; 

20 12 28

163. Department of the Army, Medical Department Activity, Fort Huachuca, ....

Fort Huachuca, Arizona

(5-31-72)

15 28 00

92
164. The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO................................................ 55 08 08; 55 08 12;

John F. Griner, National President 55 12 04; 55 12 08

(5-31-72)

165. Headquarters & Installation Support Activity (A V S C O M )..................................................... 2012 60

(6-23-72)

166. Department of the Army, Headquarters, Camp McCoy, Wisconsin, St. L o u i s..................... 20 04 04; 20 04 08

Metropolitan Area, St. Louis, Missouri 20 04 12; 20 12 64

(6-23-72)

167. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Huachuca Exchange S e rv ic e ,.......................... 20 04 16; 20 12 08

Fort Huachuca, Arizona

(6-26-72)

168. Headquarters, United States Army Aviation Systems C o m m an d ............................................... 30 20 00; 30 28 00

(6-27-72) 35 28 20; 45 16 20

169. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Customs, Boston, M assachusetts................................ 25 08 08; 25 08 16

(6-26-72)

170. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land M anagem ent,..................................................... 05 04 00; 20 12 08

Riverside District and Land Office

(6-26-72)

171. Statute of Liberty National Monument, National Park Service.................................................... 2012 64

Liberty Island, New York

(7-13-72)

172. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Grain Division..................... 15 28 00

Grain Inspection Branch, Commodity Inspection Branch, Market News

Branch, and Seed Branch, Northern Regional Office. Minneapolis Field Office 

(7-13-72)

173. Federal Aviation Administration, Department of T ransportation.......................................... 05 04 00; 05 08 00;

(7-20-72) 10 24 04; 10 24 08;

10 2412; 10 44 00; 

2012 44; 25 04 08

174. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Bliss Area E x ch an g e.......................................... 15 28 00

Fort Bliss, Texas

(7-27-72)

] 75. United States Civil Service C om m ission.................................................................................... 20 12 32; 20 12 64

San Francisco Region 

(7-28-72)

176. General Services Administration, Region 1 . . . .................................................................... 20 04 08; 20 12 56

(7-28-72)

177. Department of the Army, Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New J e r s e y .......................... 10 20 00; 25 08 08;

(7-28-72) 25 0812; 25 08 20

178. Anchorage International/Lake Hood Tower, Federal Aviation A dm inistration,..................... 10 2412

U.S. Department of Transportation

(7-28-72)

179. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Altus Air Force Base E x ch a n g e ............................... 20 12 60

(7-28-72)

180. Navy Exchange, U.S. Naval Air Station, Quonset Point, Rhode I s la n d ..................................... 30 16 00; 35 28 08

(7-28-72)

181. Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, V irg in ia .............................................................................. 2012 08

(7-28-72)

182. A d j u t a n t G e n e r a l , State of Georgia, Air Technician Detachment at D o b b in s.......................... 3016 00; 35 28 08

Air Force Base, Georgia, and Travis Field, Savannah, Georgia 

(8-3-72)

183. Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center Engineer, .... 15 12 00; 20 24 08 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

(8-3-72)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A/SLM R No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

93
184. Federal Aviation Administration, New York Air Route Traffic Control C e n te r..................... 25 08 16; 25 08 20

(8-4-72)

185. The Department of the Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds D iv is io n ................................................ >05 04 00; 20 0416

(8-7-72)

186. Internal Revenue Service, Birmingham D is tr ic t.......................................................................... 05 08 00; 20 12 40

(8-9-72)

187. U.S. Department of the Army, Red River Army Depot............................................................... 2012 08; 20 12 64;

Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana, Texas 20 24 04; 20 2412

(8-24-72)

188. United States Army Infantry Center, Non-Appropriated Fund A c tiv ity ,................................ 20 24 08

Fort Benning, Georgia

(8-24-72)

189. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Richard B. Russell Research C e n t e r..................................... 20 04 04; 20 04 08

(8-24-72)

190. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Golden Gate Exchange Region, Storage .... 100416; 252400 

and Distribution Branch, Norton Air Force Base, California

(8-24-72)

191. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Norton Air Force Base E x ch an g e,.......................... 2012 60

Norton Air Force Base, California

(8-24-72)

192. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), Health Services a n d ..................... 05 08 00; 2012 60

Mental Health Administration (HSMHA), Maternal and Child Health Services

and Federal Health Programs Service 

(8-24-72)

193. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .... 200416; 202408 

(8-24-72)

194. Federal Aviation Administration. Jacksonville Air Route T r a f f ic .......................................... 35 08 04; 35 16 00;

Control Center and Federal Aviation Science and Technological Association, 40 08 00

National Association of Government Employees. Local R5-20

(8-24-72)

195. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Dix-McGuire Consolidated E xch an g e,..................... 05 20 00; 10 0416;

Fort Dix, New Jersey 10 04 20; 10 24 08;

(8-24-72) 20 16 08; 25 20 00;

25 24 00

196. National Oceanic and Atmospheric A dm inistration,............................................................... 2012 44

Communications Operating Branch

(8-31-72)

197. Department of Justice, United States Marshal's O ffic e ,...............................................................

Northern District of Illinois

(8-31-72)

198. Department of Justice, United States Marshal’s Office............................................................... 20 12 40

Northern District of Georgia

(8-31-72)

199. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Alamo Exchange R e g io n ,.......................................... 10 04 20; 25 20 00

Fort Sam Houston, Texas

(9-1-72)

200. Bethel Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of I n te rio r,................................ 15 08 08; 20 04 12

Bethel, Alaska

(9-25-72)

201. U.S. Naval Air Station, Quonset Point, Rhode I s la n d ............................................................... 2016 04

(9-25-72)

202. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development............................................................... 10 04 08; 20 16 28

Indianapolis, Indiana Area Office

(9-25-72)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /S L M R No., Case Nam e Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved *

94
203. U.S. Department of the Army, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New J e r s e y ................................ 20 12 56

(9-25-72)

204. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation-Region 4 , .......................................... 05 04 00; 20 12 60

Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, Ogden, Utah

(9-25-72)

205. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration.......................................................... 05 04 00

Nashville, Tennessee

(9-25-72)

206. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer D istrict,............................................................... 05 28 00; 10 24 08;

Mobile, Alabama 10 24 12; 10 28 00;

(9-26-72) 20 12 40; 25 04 08

207. A C T IO N ............................................................................................................................................... 20 04 08; 20 04 12;

(9-26-72) 20 12 08

208. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Alaskan Exchange S y ste m ,..........................................

Southern District and Headquarters, Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson,

Anchorage, Alaska

(9-29-72)

209. Housing Division, Directorate of Industrial Operations................................................................... 20 04 08; 20 12 32

Headquarters 9th Infantry Division and Fort Lewis,

Fort Lewis, Washington 

(9-29-72)

210. United States Customs Service. Region IX, Chicago, I llin o is.................................................... 15 20 00; 20 12 28

(9-29-72)

211. U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command.................... 30 04 00; 30 20 00;

Automated Logistics Management Systems Agency 35 28 08;

(10-30-72)

212. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, District Office......................................... 10 16 00; 15 28 00;

Lakeview, Oregon 20 04 04; 20 12 08;

(10-30-72) 20 16 12;

213. Department of the Army, Defense Language Institute, East Coast B ran ch ............................... 25 20 00

(10-30-72)

214. Internal Revenue Service, Office of the District Director, Jacksonville District............................. 35 04 04; 35 28 00

Jacksonville, Florida

(10-30-72)

215. U.S. Naval Rework Facility, Quonset Point Naval Air Station....................................................... 20 16 04

Quonset Point, Rhode Island

(10-30-72)

216. United States Army Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New J e r s e y ............................... 10 16 00; 20 12 12

(10-31-72)

217. Department of Treasury, Division of Disbursement, Birmingham, A la b a m a .......................... 25 20 00

(10-31-72)

218. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Vandenberg Air Force Base Exchange..........................

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

(11-22-72)

219. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Richards-Gebaur Consolidated Exchange, ....

Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Missouri,

[Whiteman Air Force Base Exchange, Knob Noster, Missouri]

(11-22-72)

220. General Services Administration, Region 2, New York, New Y o r k .......................................... 10 2412

(11-30-72)

221. 9 2 6 th Tactical A i r l i f t Group, U.S. Air Force Reserve, Naval Air Station.................................... 05 04 00; 2012 08

Belle Chasse, Louisiana

(11-30-72)

222. National Ocean Survey, Pacific Marine Center and Atlantic Marine Center............................... 10 32 00

(11-30-72)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A/SLM R No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued ■ involved ‘

95
223. NASA, Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, F lo r id a ................................................ 30 28 00; 35 04 08;

(12-4-72) ' 35 28 08

224. United States Army Safeguard Logistics Command, Huntsville, A labam a,................................ 20 04 16; 25 04 04

United States Army Safeguard Systems Command, Huntsville, Alabama

(12-4-72)

225. Illinois Air National Guard, 182nd Tactical Air Support G r o u p ................................................ 25 16 00

(12-14-72)

226. United States Air Force, Non-Appropriated Fund A ctiv ities,.......................... ..... 05 28 00; 20 24 08

Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida

(12-15-72)

227. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service...............................................................

Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, South Carolina

(12-18-72)

228. Savanna Army Depot, and AMC Ammunition Center, Savanna, I ll in o is ................................ 05 20 00; 10 24 12;

(12-18-72) 15 12 00; 15 28 00

229. United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, .... 10 24 12; 10 28 00; 

Southeastern Regional Office 20 12 20 

(12-18-72)

230. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,................................ . . 10 40 00; 15 28 00

Airway Facilities Sector, Fort Worth, Texas

(12-18-72)

231. Federal Aviation Administration, Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control C enter..................... 10 28 00; 20 12 64

(12-18-72)

232. Federal Aviation Administration, Richmond Air Traffic Control Tower (Byrd Tower), . . . 10 28 00 

Roanoke Air Traffic Control Tower, and Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center

(12-18-72)

233. Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center, .... 10 28 00 

Farmington, Minnesota

(12-18-72)

234. Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region, Miami Air R o u t e ..................................... 10 28 00; 20 16 04

Traffic Control Center and Miami Airport Traffic Control Tower

(12-18-72)

235. U.S. Department of the Air Force, Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, New Mexico . . 10 24 12 

(1-2-73)

236. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Bliss Post Exchange, El Paso, Texas..................... 20 04 04; 20 12 48

(1-2-73)

237. The Department of the Treasury, U.S. Savings Bonds Division.................................................... 20 04 04

Wisconsin State Office, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

(1-3-73)

238. National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees, and Director, Office of Labor- . . . . 55 08 12 

Management and Welfare-Pension Reports, United States Department of Labor

(1-3-73)

239. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Director, Office . . . . 55 08 12 

of Labor-Management and Welfare-Pension Reports, United States Department of Labor

(1-3-73)

240. Veterans Administration and American Nurses A ssociation..................................................... 10 16 00; 10 24 12;

(1-15-73) 10 28 00

241. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire................................................................25 08 16

(1-16-73)

242. U.S. Army Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort Jackson.......................... ...... 35 08 04; 35 28 16;

Laundry Facility, Fort Jackson, South Carolina 45 08 00; 45 16 04;

(1-17-73) 4516 20

243. Department of the Army, United States Army Base Command, O k in a w a ................................ 05 04 00; 20 12 16

(1-22-73)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A /S L M R No., Case Nam e Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

96
244. Fifth U.S. Army, Camp McCoy, Wisconsin, 86th Army Reserve C o m m an d .......................... 20 12 36

(ARCOM), Area Organizational Maintenance Shop G-49

(1-22-73)

245. Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Com m and.................................................................... 10 28 00; 15 12 00;

(1-22-73) 2012 08; 2016 24

246. National Labor Relations B o a r d ..................................................... 35 28 28' 45 16 20

(1-24-73)

247. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services.......................................... 30 04 00; 35 08 12;

Region, SF, Burlingame, California 35 16 OO; 45 16 12 

(2-13-73)

248. U.S. Department of the Air Force, Air Force Communications Service..................................... 30 12 04; 35 12 00;

(AFCS), 2024th Communications Squadron, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia 35 20 00 

(2-14-73)

249. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health In sp ectio n ..................... 20 04 04; 20 12 64

Service, Veterinary Services-Animal Health Program, Madison, Wisconsin

(2-14-73)

250. Federal Aviation Administration, Great Lakes R e g io n ,................................................................ 10 04 08; 10 04 20;

Chicago Airports District Office 25 24 00

(3-2-73)

251. Office of Economic Opportunity, Region V, Chicago, Illin o is.................................................... 35 28 08

(3-2-73)

252. California Air National Guard Headquarters, 163rd ^^hter Group, O n ta rio .......................... 25 20 00

International Airport, Ontario, California

(3-2-73)

253. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Center . . . 35 08 04; 35 08 12; 

(3-5-73) 45 16 04

254. Pennsylvania National G u a r d ........................................................................................................ 10 24 08; 10 28 00;

(3-13-73) 20 04 04

255. Department of the Air Force Headquarters, Air Force Flight Test C e n te r ,.......................... 30 04 00; 35 28 32

Edwards Air Force Base, California

(3-14-73)

256. Department of the Army, Reserve Command Headquarters, Camp McCoy............................... 05 36 00; 15 20 00;

Sparta, Wisconsin, 102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, Missouri 35 08 04; 45 12 00;

(3-14-73) 45 16 04

257. United States Customs Service, Region IX, Chicago, Illin o is .................................................... 35 08 04

(3-14-73)

258. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Electronics Command (EC O M ),.................................... 15 08 04; 20 04 04;

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 20 12 60 

(3-14-73)

259. California Air National Guard H eadquarters,............................................... ..................... 20 04 04; 20 16 16;

146th Tactical Airlift Wing, Van Nuys, California 20 24 04; 20 24 12 

(3-14-73)

260. Department of the Army, United States Dependents’ Schools, European A rea .......................... 10 12 00; 20 04 04;

(3-28-73) 20 04 12; 20 16 16;

25 04 08

261. U.S. Department of Air Force, Norton Air Force B a s e .............................................................. 30 12 20; 35 28 12

(4-30-73)

262. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the M in t......................................................................... 10 24 12; 20 04 04;

(5-16-73) 201616

263. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts .... 35 16 00; 45 16 12 

(5-16-73)

264. Western Division of Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, California .... 05 12 08; 35 08 04; 

(5-31-73) 3512 00; 4516 04

n u m e r ic a l l ist in g o f c a ses

AISLMR No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

97
265. General Services Administration Region 5, Chicago, Illinois’ ..................................................... 20 04 04; 20 12 36

(5-31-73)

266. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Regional Office V I..................... 20 04 04; 20 12 20

(5-31-73)

267. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. Public Health Service................................ 20 04 04; 20 12 64

Hospital, Boston-Brighton, Massachusetts

(5-31-73)

268. United States Department of Agriculture, Northern Marketing and N utrition........................... 05 04 00

Research Division, Peoria, Illinois

(5-31-73)

269. New Jersey Department of D e fe n s e ............................................................................................... 05 04 00

(5-31-73)

270. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region I I ..................................................... 10 24 12; 20 04 04;

(5-31-73) , 2012 08

271. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services Region................................ 20 12 20; 20 12 28

(DCASR), Boston, Massachusetts

(5-31-73)

272. United States Postal Service, Berwyn Post Office, I llin o is .......................................................... 30 16 00; 35 08 04

(5-31-73)

273. Federal Aviation Administration, Eastern Region, Boston ARTCC.............................................. 35 08 04; 35 16 00

Nashua, New Hampshire

(5-31-73)

274. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Central Region.......................................... 20 04 04; 20 12 32

Publications Division

(6-1-73)

275. Local 1858, American Federation of Government Employees,..................................................... 40 08 00; 40 32 00;

(Redstone Arsenal, Alabama) 50 16 04

(6-15-73)

276. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, District Office, Lakeview, Oregion . .

(6-22-73)

277. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airway Facilities .... 10 28 00; 20 04 20 

Sector (ARTCC), Albuquerque, New Mexico

(6-22-73)

278. U.S. Department of the Army, Transportation Motor P o o l,.......................................................... 35 08 04; 35 28 16;

Fort Wainwright, Alaska 45 16 04; 45 16 20

(6-25-73)

279. Internal Revenue Service, Chicago D istrict.................................................................................... 30 04 00; 30 24 00

(6-25-73)

280. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Western Service Center, . . . 05 08 00; 35 08 04 

Ogden, Utah

(6-25-73)

281. U.S. Army Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New J e r s e y ............................................... 05 36 00; 35 08 04;

(6-27-73) 45 16 04

282. Aberdeen Proving Ground Command, Department of the A r m y .......................................... 20 16 08

(6-29-73)

283. Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center, Federal Aviation Administration..................... 35 08 08; 45 16 04

(6-30-73)

284. Non-Appropriated Fund Activities, XVIII Airborne Corps a n d ............................................... 25 08 20

Ft. Bragg, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina

(7-18-73)

285. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean S u rv e y .......................... 35 08 04; 35 24 00;

(7-25-73) 35 28 08

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

AISLMR No., Case Name Sections) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

98
286. U.S. Department of the Army, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground Command . . 30 28 00; 35 08 04; 

(7-25-73) 35 08 08; 35 12 00;

35 24 00

287. Federal Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airway Facility, Sector 12, Atlanta, Georgia . . . 35 28 20; 45 16 20 

(7-25-73)

288. U.S. Army Safeguard Systems Command, P.O. Box 1500, Huntsville, A la b a m a ...........................20 16 08; 25 20 00

(7-25-73)

289. United States Department of Navy, Bureau of Medicine and S u rg e ry ,...........................................30 04 00; 30 08 00;

Great Lakes Naval Hospital, Illinois 35 28 12; 35 28 36;

(7-25-73) 45 16 20

290. Norfolk Naval S h i p y a r d .............................................................................................................. 35 08 04; 35 28 28;

(7-25-73) 45 16 20; 6016 00

291. AMC Ammunition Center, Savanna, I llin o is.............................................................................. 10 24 12; 20 12 60;

(7-25-73) 20 16 28

292. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Clyde Webber............................... 55 08 04; 55 12 20

National President; Ninth District, American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO, Kermit I. Tull, National Vice-President; and Local 916,

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Lowell Malloy, President 

(7-25-73)

293. General Services Administration, PBS, FSS, ADTS, Fresno, California.................................... 20 04 04; 20 12 56

(7-31-73)

294. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1650, Beeville, Texas.......................... 40 32 00; 50 12 00;

(Naval Air Station, Chase Field, Beeville, Texas), and American Federation of 50 16 28

Government Employees, Washington, D.C. (Naval Air Station, Chase Field,

Beeville, Texas)

(7-31-73)

295. National Labor Relations Board, Region 17, and National Labor Relations Board .... 25 12 04; 30 12 04; 

(8-6-73)

296. Veterans Administration, Veterans Benefits Office......................................................................... H

(o 1 ^ 70^ 35 08 08; 35 08 12;

^ ^ 3512 00; 35 32 00

297. Department of the Navy, United States Naval Weapons Center.................................................... 25 20 00

China Lake, California

(8-15-73)

298. Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California............................... 25 20 00

(8-15-73)

299. Atomic Energy Commission, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, I d a h o ...............................

(8-15-73)

300. Federal Aviation Administration, Atlanta ATC T o w e r.............................................................. 05 04 00; 35 16 00

(8-15-73)

301. Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Hospital, Muskogee, Oklahoma .... 4 5 1 ^ 0

(8-15-73)

302. Department of the Navy, Charleston Naval S h ip y a rd .............................................................. 25 20 00

(8-15-73)

303. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mark Twain N a tio n a l..................... 20 12 08

Forest, Springfield, Missouri

(8-20-73)

304. Charleston Naval Shipyard, Chanleston, South, C a ro lin a ......................................................... 35 08 04

(8-21-73)

305. Department of Interior, National Park Service, National Capital Parks.................................... 20 16 08; 2016 16

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performmg Arts

(9-22-73)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

AISLMR No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved '■

99
306. Department of the Army, Reserve Command Headquarters, Camp McCoy.......................................05 36 00; 15 20 00;

Sparta, Wisconsin, 102nd Reserve Command, St. Louis, Missouri 35 08 04 

(9-12-73)

307. Department of the Navy and The U.S. Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia . . . 05 36 00; 15 20 00; 

(9-12-73) 35 08 04

308. Veterans Administration Hospital, Portland, O re g o n ...........................................................................20 16 04

(9-12-73)

309. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Fresno S e rv ic e ......................................05 36 00; 15 20 00;

Center, Fresno, California 25 04 12; 35 08 04;

(9-20-73) 35 12 00

310. Defense Mapping Agency Topographic Center, Providence O ffic e ,.......................................... 15 12 00; 25 20 20

West Warwick, Rhode Island

(9-28-73)

311. Veterans Administration Hospital, East Orange, New J e r s e y ..................................................... 10 24 12; 20 12 08

(9-28-73)

312. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Western Administrative Office,.......................... 20 08 04

Denver, Colorado

(10-1-73)

313. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, F light..................................... 2012 40; 2016 28

Inspection District Office, Battle Creek, Michigan

(10-1-73)

314. Small Business Administration, Miami District O ffic e ............................................................... 2012 56

(10-5-73)

315. Department of the U.S. Army, U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command..................................... 25 08 20

St. Louis, Missouri

(10-24-73)

316. National Science F o u n d a tio n ......................................................................................................... 10 40 00; 25 04 04;

(10-24-73) 25 04 08

317. Veterans Administration Center, Togus, M a in e ................................................................................10 04 12; 10 24 12

(10-24-73)

318. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation..................................................... ...... 10 04 12; 10 24 12;

Lower Colorado Region 20 12 56; 20 16 08;

(10-24-73) 2016 28

319. United States Air Force 321st Combat Support G ro u p ,............................................................... 10 2412

Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota

(10-24-73)

320. U.S. Army Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New J e rs e y ............................................... 05 36 00; 35 08 04

(10-29-73)

321. Department of the Navy, United States Naval Station, Adak, Alaska 

(11-5-73)

322. Department of Defense, Air Force Defense Language Institute, E n g lis h ................................ 35 28 08

Language Branch, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas

(11-13-73)

323. Department of Defense, State of New J e r s e y ............................................................................... 30 32 00

(11-16-73)

324. Anaheim Post Office, U.S. Postal Service, Anaheim, C a lifo rn ia ............................................... 35 08 04; 45 20 00

(11-16-73)

325. United States Department of the Army, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado . . . 10 32 00; 20 16 04 

(11-27-73)

326. U.S. Naval Station, Newport, Rhode I s l a n d ............................................................................... 10 32 00; 20 16 04

(11-27-73)

327. United States Air Force, Fort Snelling Officers Open Mess, Non-Commissioned..................... 20 12 08

Officers Club, Sleeping Quarters, Temporary Personnel and Fiscal Control Office,

Fort Snelling, Minnesota 

(11-27-73)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

AISLMR No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved

100
328. Department of Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center Engineer................................ 15 08 04; 20 12 48;

and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 20 16 28* 35 28 00 

(11-27-73)

329. Federal Aviation Administration, National Aviation Facilities..................................................... 35 08 04; 35 24 00;

Experimental Center, Atlantic City, New Jersey 35 28 12; 45 16 20

(11-28-73)

330. Veterans Administration Hospital, Tampa, F lo r id a ............................................................... 20 12 08; 20 16 20

(11-28-73)

331. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.......................... 20 12 28; 20 12 60

National Weather Service, Central Region

(11-28-73)

332. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Department of the Navy, Bremerton, Washington..................... 30 12 04; 35 04 12;

(12-4-73) 35 08 04; 35 28 28;

35 32 00; 4516 20

333. General Services Administration, Region 9, San Francisco, C alifo rn ia..................................... 05 28 00; 10 24 12;

(12-4-73) 20 16 04; 25 04 16

334. Office of Economic Opportunity, Region V, Chicago, Illin o is.................................................... ......35 08 04; 35 12 00

(12-4-73)

335. Veterans Administration Center, Bath, New Y o r k ..........................................................................35 28 28

(1-8-74)

336. Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Texas Air National G u a rd .......................... ......35 08 04; 35 12 00;

(1-8-74) 35 2816; 35 32 00

337. Department of the Air Force, Norton Air Force Base, California..................................................... 35 08 08

(1-8-74)

338. Northwest Area Exchange (A A FES).................................................................................................... 15 12 00; 20 12 56;

(1-8-74) 2012 60; 25 04 08

339. U.S. Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service.................................................... 10 04 16; 25 20 00

Angeles National Forest, Pasadena, California

(1-8-74)

340. United States Department of Air Force, Warner Robins Air Materiel Area (WRAMA) . . 35 32 00 

■ Commissary Store 2853rd Air Base Division, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia

(1-8-74)

341. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Affairs D a t a .......................... 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico 35 28 12; 45 16 20

(1-9-74)

342. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, . . . . 25 20 00 

Airway Facilities Sector, Air Route Traffic Control Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico

(1-25-74)

343. Department of the Air Force, Keesler Technical Training Center, Keesler Air Force Base . . 35 08 04 

(1-25-74)

344. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, F lo r id a ..........................

(1-25-74)

345. Army Aviation Support Facility, Virginia National G u a r d .........................................................

(1-25-74)

346. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station, Memphis, Millington, Tennessee.......................... 05 28 00; 10 20 00;

(1-25-74) 10 24 04

347. General Services Administration, Region 3 ................................................................................... 10 32 00; 20 1616

(1-25-74)

348. California National Guard State Military Forces, Sacramento, California............................... 30 16 00; 35 08 04;

(1-25-74) 35 12 00; 35 20 00;

35 28 28; 35 32 00;

4516 04; 4516 20

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A/SLMR No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

101
349. Antilles Consolidated Schools, Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto R i c o ...........................................25 08 32

(2-5-74)

350. Department of the Air Force, 4392 Aerospace Support Group.................................. ...........................302000; 350804;

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 35 12 00; 35 24 00;

(2-5-74) 35 28 04

351. Department of the Army, Strategic Communications Command, Fort Huachuca, Arizona . . 20 16 28; 25 20 00 

(2-5-74)

352. Long Beach Naval Shipyard............................................................... . . , . . . 35 08 04; 35 28 08

(2-5-74)

353. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, K a n s a s ................................ 35 16 00; 35 24 00

City Air Route Control Center, Olathe, Kansas

(2-5-74)

354. Department of the Treasury, United States Customs S e rv ic e .................................................... 20 12 32

(2-28-74)

355. Tennessee Air National Guard, Nashville, Tennessee.................................................................... 30 08 08

(2-28-74)

356. Department of the Air Force, McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California 

(2-28-74)

357. Veterans Administration, Veterans Benefit O ffice..........................................' ............................. 20 12 32

(2-28-74)

358. General Services Administration, Region 2, New York, New Y o rk .......................................... 10 12 00; 10 24 12;

(2-28-74) 10 44 00; 20 04 04;

20 12 28; 20 12 32; 

20 16 12; 25 04 08

359. Graphic Arts International Union, Local 4 B .............................................................................. 40 08 00; 50 16 04

(2-28-74)

360. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Property Disposal Office.......................................................... 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland 35 24 00; 35 28 28;

(2-28-74) 45 16 16

36L Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Food and D r u g .......................................... 2012 40

Administration, Newark District, Newark, New Jersey 

(2-28-74)

362. New Mexico Air National Guard, Department of Military A ffa irs,.......................................... 35 28 12; 45 16 20

Office of the Adjutant General, Santa Fe, New Mexico

(2-28-74)

363. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Apache A g e n c y ,..................... 05 12 08; 20 16 04

Phoenix, Arizona

(3-8-74)

364. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation A dm inistration,.......................................... 10 04 08; 2016 28;

Southwest Region, Tulsa Airway Facilities Sector 25 20 00

(3-14-74)

365. Directorate of Maintenance, Manufacture and Repair Production Branch (MANPSM), . . 35 08 04; 35 12 00 

Warner Robins Air Material Area (WRAMA), Robins Air Force Base, Georgia

(3-14-74)

366. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Vandenberg Air Force Base E x ch an g e..................... 35 08 04

(3-14-74)

367. U.S. Department of the Army, United States Army Missile Command..................................... 35 08 04; 35 28 24

Huntsville, Alabama

(3-14-74)

368. Veterans Administration Hospital, Columbia, South C a ro lin a ............................................... 10 04 08; 10 04 16;

(3-14-74) 10 24 08; 20 16 08;

20 16 28

369. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural R esearc h ............................................... 20 12 60

Service, Bee Research Laboratory Complex, Tucson, Arizona

(3-14-74)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

AISLM R No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved *

102
370. Illinois Army National Guard, 1st Battalion, 202nd Air Defense Artillery................................

Arlington Heights, Illinois

(3-14-74)

371. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Kirtland Air Force Base E x ch a n g e .......................... 20 16 08: 20 16 28;

(3-19-74) 25 24 00

372. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services R e g io n .......................... 20 12 44

(DCASR), Cleveland, Ohio, Defense Contract Administration Services Office

(DCASO), Columbus, Ohio

Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration Services R e g io n ..........................

(DCASR), Cleveland, Ohio, Defense Contract Administration Services

Office (DCASO), Akron, Ohio

(3-25-74)

373. Department of the Navy, Hunters Point Naval S h ip y a rd ......................................................... 35 08 04

(4-4-74)

374. Directorate of Maintenance, Production Branch, Warner R o b in s .......................................... 35 08 04; 35 28 28

Air Materiel Area, Robins Air Force Base

(4-4-74)

375. Puget Sound Shipyard Employees Service Committee, Puget Sound.......................................... 20 12 64

Naval Shipyard, Department of Navy, Bremerton, Washington

(4-4-74)

376. Pennsylvania National Guard, Department of Military A f fa irs ............................................... 15 08 08; 15 12 00

(4-10-74)

377. Department of the Army, Camp McCoy, Sparta, W isco n sin .................................................... 20 16 28; 25 20 00

(4-10-74)

378. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public D eb t..............................................................

(4-10-74)

379. Air Traffic Control, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, A laska............................... 35 08 04; 35 28 04

(4-30-74)

380. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder Canyon Project Office, Boulder City, N evada.......................... 30 04 00

(4-30-74)

381. U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts.............................................................. 35 08 04; 45 16 04

(4-30-74)

382. Philadelphia Naval S h ip y a r d ........................................................................................................ 20 04 04; 20 12 64;

(4-30-74) 20 16 04; 20 16 28

383. Vandenberg Air Force Base, 4392 Aerospace Support Group.................................................... 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

Vandenberg AFB, California 35 28 16; 45 16 04

(4-30-74)

384. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters 438th Air Base G roup,.......................................... 35 28 04

McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey

(4-30-74)

385. Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Center, Hampton, V irg in ia ..................... 35 28 32; 45 16 04

(4-30-74)

386. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Depot Tracy, Tracy, California............................................... 05 08 00; 20 16 16

(4-30-74)

387. Department of Agriculture, Office of Information Systems, Kansas City, Missouri..................... 15 28 00

(5-10-74)

388. Veterans Administration, Wadsworth Hospital Center, Los Angeles, California..................... 35 08 04; 35 28 32;

(5-15-74) 45 04 00

389. Department of the Army, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, U ta h .................................................... 20 16 08; 20 16 28;

(5-15-74) 25 20 00

390. Department of the Navy Supervisor of Shipbuilding.................................................................... 35 28 28; 45 16 20

Conversion and Repair, Pascagoula, Mississippi

(5-15-74)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

AISLMR No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved i

103
391. Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract Administration.......................................................... ......15 20 00; 2012 28;

Services Region (DCASR), Boston, Massachusetts 20 16 16 

(5-31-74)

392. Army-Air Force Exchange Service, Capital Exchange Region, Tacony Warehouse.....................

(5-31-74)

393. Department of the Navy, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C...................................................30 24 00; 35 08 04;

(5-31-74) e , 3516 00; 4516 04;

45 16 12

394. Idaho Panhandle National Forests, United States Department of Agriculture.......................... ......10 04 08; 10 24 12;

(5-31-74) 20 16 28

395. U.S. Army Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New J e r s e y ............................................... 30 04 00; 35 28 04

(5-31-74)

396. Joint Technical Communications Office (TRI-TAC), Department of D efense,.......................... 35 28 20; 45 16 20

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey

(5-31-74)

397. Air National Guard Bureau, State of V erm ont.............................................................................. 35 28 24

(6-20-74)

398. Department of Defense, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Communications............................................... 20 12 16; 20 16 28

Agency, Fort Sam Houston, Texas

(6-20-74)

399. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Management System s...............................................

(6-20-74)

400. United States Department of the Navy, Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky . . . 05 08 00; 35 04 08; 

(6-21-74) 35 08 04; 35 24 00;

35 2816; 35 28 28; 

35 28 32; 35 32 00; 

4516 04; 45 16 20

401. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation....................................................................... 35 08 04; 35 28 08;

Yuma Projects Office, Yuma, Arizona 35 28 28; 35 32 00;

(6-21-74) 4516 04

402. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Jefferson N ational..................................... 15 12 00; 30 16 00;

Expansion Memorial, St. Louis, Missouri 35 08 04; 35 12 00

(6-24-74)

403. Charleston Naval Shipyard, Production Department, Charleston, South Carolina . . . . 05 08 00; 35 08 04 

(6-24-74)

404. General Services Administration, Region 6, Public Buildings S e rv ic e ,..................................... 35 08 04; 35 28 20

Kansas City, Missouri

(6-24-74)

405. Federal Aviation Administration, National Capital A irp o rts ....................................................

(6-24-74)

406. Department of Defense, Army Materiel Command, Tooele Army Depot.................................... 10 32 00; 35 28 04

Tooele, Utah

(6-25-74)

407. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Polk, Louisiana.................................................... 25 08 20

(6-27-74)

408. Albany Metallurgy Research Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines......................................................... 35 24 00; 35 28 04

U.S. Department of the Interior, Albany, Oregon

(6-27-74)

NUMERICAL LISTING OF CASES

A/SLM R No., Case Name Section(s) of Digest

and Date Issued Involved ^

104
TABLE OF REPORTS ON RULINGS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY ‘

Numerical Listing, Dates of Issuance, and Section of Digest Involved

Section(s) of Digest

R A /S No. Date Issued Involved

1 2-13-70 05 32 00 25 3-1-71

2 2-13-70 05 32 00 26 3-18-71

3 2-13-70 05 32 00 27 3-19-71

4 2-13-70 05 32 00 28 4-23-71

5 2-13-70 05 32 00 29 5-10-71

6 3-2-70 05 32 00 30 5-27-71

7 8-3-70 10 16 00; 20 20 00 31 6-14-71

8 8-14-70 10 36 00 32 6-14-71

9 10-27-70 05 20 00; 10 20 00; 33 6-15-71

55 04 00 34 6-16-71

10 10-27-70 10 04 12 35 7-22-71

11 10-27-70 10 12 00 36 7-23-71

12 10-28-70 25 08 08 37 8-16-71

13 10-28-70 10 16 00 38 8-24-71

14 10-29-70 05 28 00 39 9-30-71

15 10-30-70 05 16 00 40 10-18-71

16 11-9-70 30 04 00 41 11-19-71

17 11-1-70 30 08 08 42 11-19-71

18 11-17-70 05 08 00 43 12-14-71

19 11-18-70 25 16 00 44 1-17-72

20 12-8-70 25 08 08; 25 08 20 45 1-20-72

21 1-14-71 10 16 00 46 1-20-72

22 1-15-71 25 08 08 47 1-20-72

23 2-3-71 35 08 04 48 1-20-72

24 2-26-71 30 08 00 49 2-15-72

50 2-29-72

^ Reports on Rulings of the Assistant Secretary (R A/S) are 

published summaries of significant or precedent-setting decisions 

by the A/S on requests for review of actions taken at the field 

level. These Reports, originally referred to as Reports on Decisions, but now referred to as Reports on Rulings of the Assistant 

Secretary, do not identify the parties involved.

51

52

53

54

55

8-18-72

3-12-73

6-22-73

9-6-73

35 32 00

35 28 00

05 08 00

10 20 00 

10 08 00

10 16 00

35 28 00

25 08 16

30 04 00

05 12 04

55 08 08

05 08 00;

10 12 00

10 24 12

25 08 08

25 04 04;

25 08 08

10 40 00

10 12 00

05 04 00

05 28 00

30 08 00

30 08 00

30 04 00;

30 28 00

25 08 08

25 08 08;

10 16 00

25 12 04

10 04 16;

35 28 00

55 08 04

25 12 08

30 08 00

25 12 12

10 04 20

105

INDEX

Abuse of administrative process 

AC petition

Access to work areas, campaigning 

Accretion

Activity Petition (RA)

Additions to unit 

Adequacy of 

Record

Showing of interest 

Admissibility of evidence at hearings 

Advice, erroneous by LMSA agents 

Advisory opinions 

Agency

Authority to exclude emps from EO 

Directives, ULP 

Facilities for campaigning 

Petition (RA)

Regulations not binding on A /S

Rules on campaigning 

Agent—Principal 

Agreement 

Accretion

Approval pending at higher agency 

level

Bar to petition 

Bar, unilateral waiver of 

Extension as ULP 

Indefinite duration 

Interpretation 

Premature extension 

Refusal to sign 

Terminable at will 

Unilateral termination 

Amendment 

Certification 

Complaint

Petition 

Recognition 

Anti-Union literature 

Appropriate unit 

Accretion 

Activity-wide

Agency regulations not binding

on A /S

Agency-wide

Area-wide

Base-wide

Branch-wide

10 28 00 

10 04 20

25 08 16; 35 08 00 

20 16 08 

10 04 08 

20 16 08

15 28 00 

10 16 00; 20 16 08 

05 12 08 

10 24 12 

05 16 00

05 08 00

35 04 04; 35 08 04 

25 08 16 

10 04 08

10 04 16; 35 04 04; 

25 08 16 

25 08 16 

35 08 08

10 24 12

10 24 12 

10 24 12 

10 24 12 

35 08 04 

10 24 12 

30 28 00 

10 24 12 

35 28 00 

10 24 12 

35 28 00

10 04 20 30 12 00; 

30 08 00;

30 16 00 

15 08 08 

10 04 20

35 08 04; 35 08 08 

20 04 00 to 20 12 00 

20 16 08 

20 12 08

20 04 16 

20 12 04 

20 12 36 

20 12 48 

20 12 44

1 Specific employee classifications or categories, such as 

“Accountant” or • “Temporary Employee” are indexed under 

“e K o Y E E CATEGORI^ a n d CLASSIFICATIONS

City-wide 

Clarification 

Command-wide 

Community of interest 

Criteria

Directorate-wide 

District-wide 

Division-wide 

Effective dealings 

Efficiency of operations 

Eligibility

Extent of organization

Field-wide

Geographic scope

Headquarters-wide

History of bargaining

Multi-installation

Nation-wide

Occupational classifications 

One employee 

Organizational scope 

Pattern at similar activities 

Previous certification 

Relevance of units elsewhere 

Region-wide 

Residual employees 

Scope

Section-wide 

Self-determination 

Severance 

Single employee 

Single installation 

State-wide

Stipulations not binding on A /S 

Supervisors 

Supervisory unit 

World-wide 

Arbitration

Cancellation as ULP

Effect on ULP 

Area administrator

Authority for approval of consent 

agreement

Withdrawal of approval of consent 

agreement 

Assistant Secretary 

Advisory opinions 

Agents as witnesses 

Authority

Documents at bearings

Jurisdiction

Role of

20 08 16 

25 20 00 

20 12 16 

20 04 04 

20 04 00 

20 12 12 

20 12 40 

20 12 32 

20 04 08 

20 04 12 

20 16 12 

20 04 04 

20 12 24 

20 08 00 

20 12 20

20 04 08; 2012 00 

20 12 56 

20 08 08 

20 12 64 

05 04 00 

20 12 00 

15 12 00 

20 04 20 

15 12 00 

20 12 28 

20 16 16 

20 08 00; 2012 00; 

20 16 00 

20 12 52 

20 16 20 

20 16 04 

05 04 00 

20 12 60 

20 08 12 

20 04 16 

10 32 00 

20 16 24 

20 08 04

35 08 04; 35 24 00; 

35 28 00 

30 28 00

10 40 00

10 40 00

05 16 00 

05 12 04

05 08 00; 55 08 04 

05 12 04 

05 08 00 

05 08 00

107
INDEX

Attorneys

Conflict of interest 

Authority of 

Agency 

AA 

A/S 

HO 

ARD

Automatic renewal clause

B

Bad faith negotiations 

Ballot 

Bargaining 

Bargaining history 

Bars to petition 

Agreement 

Certification 

Election 

Bill of Rights

Campaigning in lab org officer

election

Candidacy

Complaint dismissal criteria 

Complaint procedure 

Conflict of interest, lab org 

employee and member 

Convention delegates 

Convention participation 

Delegates, convention 

Election, certification of 

Employee - members of lab org 

Equal rights 

Exhaustion of remedies 

Free speech and assembly 

Hearing requisites 

Lab org off election 

Campaigning 

Candidacy

Violations, alleged 

Membership meetings 

Mootness 

Officer, lab org 

Procedure 

Binding agreements 

Burden of proof

Internal security exclusions 

Objections to election 

Rep unit determinations 

ULP cases

Campaign

Lab org off election 

Rep case 

Literature

Misrepresentation 

Work hours 

Campaign literature

10 32 00

05 08 00; 35 04 04 

10 40 00

05 08 00; 55 08 04 

15 04 00 

10 40 00 

10 24 12

35 28 00 

See: Elections 

See: Negotiations 

20 04 04

10 24 12 

10 24 08 

10 24 04

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08 

55 08 08 

55 08 00

55 12 04; 5512 08 

55 08 12; 55 12 04 

55 12 04

55 08 12; 55 12 04 

55 08 12

55 12 04; 55 12 08 

55 12 04 

55 08 08 

55 12 08 

55 08 08

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04;

55 12 08

55 08 12

55 12 04

55 08 08

55 12 04

55 08 08

10 24 12

15 12 00 

25 08 08 

15 12 00

30 08 00; 35 12 00

55 12 08

25 0812; 25 0816; 

25 08 20; 35 08 08 

25 08 20 

25 08 16

25 08 12; 25 08 16; 

25 08 20; 35 08 08

Candidacy, lab org officer

“Carve-out”

Categories of emps 

Cease and desist orders 

Certification 

Amendment of 

Bar to petition 

Revocation of 

Challenges to 

Ballot 

Eligibility 

Intervention 

Showing of interest 

Status as labor org 

Stipulations 

Voter

Changes, name of activity or

representative

Charge

Checkoff revocation by activity

Civil Service Commission 

EO Sec. 25(a) responsibilities 

Federal personnel work 

Guidance 

Clarification of unit

Clarification determinations 

Procedure 

Classifications

Collateral issues 

Collective bargaining

History

Community of interest 

Companion cases 

Complaint

Standards of conduct 

Procedure 

ULP

Amendment

Investigation

Limited to allegations

Motion to dismiss

Pre-complaint requirements

Requisites

Rulings of ALJs

Timeliness

Violation not specifically alleged 

Compliance with decision and order 

Composition of units

Concurrent related cases 

Conduct of election 

Conflict of interest 

Attorneys

Employee of lab org and member 

Mgt of lab org and fed employee 

Mgt off and lab org role 

Consent agreement

AA’s authority to approve

55 0812; 5512 04; 

55 12 08 

20 16 04 

20 20 00

45 00 00; 50 00 00

10 04 20 

10 24 08 

25 16 00

25 12 08 

25 12 12 

10 12 00 

10 16 00 

10 20 00 

20 12 04

20 20 00; 25 12 04 

10 04 20

30 04 00; 30 08 00 

35 24 00; 35 28 00; 

45 04 00

10 32 00 

05 08 00; 

35 04 04

20 12 00

25 20 00 

10 04 16

See: emp categories 

and classifications 

10 16 00 

See also: 

Negotiations 

20 04 08; 20 0412; 

20 16 04 

20 04 04

05 20 00; 30 28 00 

See also: Unfair 

labor practices; 

standards of conduct 

55 00 00 

55 08 00 

30 00 00

30 08 00; 3012 00; 

30 16 00 

30 08 00 

30 12 00 

30 04 00 

30 08 00 

30 04 00 

30 12 04 

30 08 00 

30 12 04

45 00 00; 50 00 00 

20 08 00; 2012 00; 

20 16 00

05 20 00; 30 28 00 

25 08 28

10 32 00 

55 12 08 

10 32 00 

10 32 00

10 40 00

108
INDEX

AA’s withdrawal of approval 

Refusal to sign 

Continuance of hearing 

Contract bar 

Convention 

Delegates 

Participation 

Cooperation of parties 

Coverage of EO 

Craft severance

Cross examination, failure to allow 

Current representative status of 

petitioner 

CU petition

D

Decertification

Definitions

Defunctness 

Lab org

Management official 

Non-employee

Professional employee 

Supervisors 

Unit 

Defunctness

Delegates, convention

Determination of appropriate unit

Dilatory conduct 

Disclaimer of interest 

Dismissal

Disqualification as lab org 

Distribution of literature

Documents at hearing, LMSA 

DR petition

Dues checkoff revocation by activity 

Duty to bargain

E

Effective dealings 

Efficiency of operations 

Election bar to petition 

Elections

Lab org officers 

Campaigning 

Candidacy

Complaint procedure 

Representation 

Ballot markings 

Campaigning

10 40 00 Challenges See: Challenges

10 12 00 Craft severance 2016 04; 25 04 16

15 04 00 Decertification 10 04 12

10 24 12 Eligibility 20 16 12 (See also:

55 08 12; 5512 04

Emp categories and

classifications)

55 12 04 Exclusion from ballot 10 32 00

15 20 00 Mail ballot 25 08 08; 25 12 08

05 08 00 Position on ballot 10 12 00

20 16 04 Procedure 25 04 00

15 12 00 Prof emps 25 04 04

Role of observers 25 04 12

10 28 00 Refusal to sign consent

10 0416; 10 24 08 agreement 10 12 00

Rerun 25 16 00

Runoff 25 08 08

Self-determination 25 08 08

10 04 12 Separate voting groups 25 04 00

See also: Emp Severance 20 16 04; 25 04 16

categories and Tally 25 08 08

classifications Tie vote 25 16 00

05 04 00 Voter intent 25 12 00

05 04 00 Voting groups 25 04 00

05 04 00 Voting procedures 25 04 04

20 20 00 Vista Eligibility See also: Challenges;

Volunteers and emp categories

05 04 00 and classifications

05 04 00 Seasonal emps. 20 16 12

05 04 00 Employee categories and classifications

05 04 00; 10 24 04; Accountant 20 20 00

10 24 12; 10 44 00 Accounting supv 20 20 00 Supv

55 08 12; 5512 04; Account tech 20 20 00 Supv

55 12 08 Administrative asst 20 20 00 Supv; mgt.

See: Appropriate off.

units Administrative emp 20 20 00

35 08 04; 35 28 00 Administrative off 20 20 00 Conf

10 04 12 emps, fed pers work,

See: Rep cases; mgt off, supv

ULP; standards of Administrative spec

conduct (Battalion level) 20 20 00 Mgt off

10 20 00 Administrative spec

See: Campaign (Battery level) 20 20 00 Conf emps

literature Administrative supply tech 20 20 00 Mgt off

05 12 04 Agricultural mgt spec

10 04 12 (County supervisors) 20 20 00 Supv

35 24 00; 35 28 00; Aircraft loadmaster (instructor) 20 20 00 Supv

45 16 00 Aircraft maintenance analysis tech 20 20 00 Mgt off,

See; Negotiations supv

Air tech 20 20 00 Guards

Anesthetists 20 20 00 Nurses

Appraisers 20 20 00 Prof emps

20 04 08 Architect 20 20 00

20 04 12 Area spec 20 20 00 Mgt off

10 24 04 Area utilization off 20 20 00 Mgt off.

See also: Challenges supv

and objections to Asst budget off 20 20 00 Supv

election Asst county supv

Asst dir of advertising and

20 20 00

55 12 08 promotion 20 20 00 Mgt off

55 0812; 5512 04; Asst dir of marketing 20 20 00 Mgt off

55 12 08 Asst gen foreman 20 20 00 Supv

55 08 12 Asst market analysis off 20 20 00 Supv

Asst public information off 20 20 00 Supv

25 12 08 Asst to automotive mechanic leader 20 20 00 Supv

See: Objections to Asst to coordinator of banking

election and volunteer activities 20 20 00 Supv

109
INDEX

Asst to national dir 20 20 00 Mgt off Dist ranger clerks 20 20 00 Conf emps

Attorneys 20 20 00 Mgt off, Editorial asst 20 20 00 Supv

supv Educational and vocational

Auditor 20 20 00 training spec 20 20 00

Automotive equipment insp 20 20 00 Supv Electronics material chief

Automotive equipment mntnce (Battalion level) 20 20 00 Mgt off

gen foreman 20 20 00 Supv Engineer 20 20 00

Automotive mechanic leader 20 20 00 Supv Engineer, civil 20 20 00 Prof emps

Biologist, wildlife 20 20 00 Prof emps Equal opportunity spec 20 20 00 Mgt off,

Bond sales promotional spec 20 20 00 Supv

Bowling alley asst mgr 20 20 00 Mgt off, Evaluation and proficiency

supv development spec 20 20 00 Mgt off

Bowling alley night mgr 20 20 00 Mgt off, Evaluation and proficiency spec 20 20 00 Mgt off,

supv supv

Broadcasting mgr 20 20 00 Supv Executive secy to dir of activity 20 20 00 Conf emps

Budget off 20 20 00 Supv Farm spec 20 20 00

Cadastral surveyor 20 20 00 Federal payroll savings executive 20 20 00 Supv

Captains 20 20 00 Firefighters Fed pers work 20 20 00

Career intermittent emps 20 20 00 Fire control mechanic

Intermittent emps (Battalion level) 20 20 00 Mgt off

Casual emps 20 20 00 Fire control mechanic

Central storeroom mgr 20 20 00 Mgt off (Battery level) 20 20 00 Mgt off

Chief of inventory cycle unit 20 20 00 Supv Fire control sect leader 20 20 00 Supv

Chief of office services 20 20 00 Supv Fire dispatcher 20 20 00 Supv

Chief quartermaster 20 20 00 Supv Firefighter 20 20 00 Guards

Chief radar mechanic 20 20 00 Mgt off Fire inspectors 20 20 00 Firefighters

Civil engineer 20 20 00 Fire protection insp 20 20 00 Firefighters

Civilian registered nurses, First sergeant 20 20 00 Mgt off

(staff nurses) 20 20 00 Nurses supv

Civilian technicians of augmented Flight engineer (instructor) 20 20 00 Mgt off

security policy force 20 20 00 Guards Flow controllers 20 20 00 Mgt off

Classified activities 20 20 00 Food activities supv 20 20 00 Supv

Clerical asst 20 20 00 Conf emps Forester 20 20 00

Clerical asst to pers off 20 20 00 Conf emps General schedule 20 20 00

Clerical emps 20 20 00 Group leaders 20 20 00 Supv

Clerical services supv 20 20 00 Supv Guards See: Guards

Clerk-stenographer 20 20 00 Conf emps Guidance counselors 20 20 00 Supv

Clinical coordinator 20 20 00 Mgt. off. Head nurses 20 20 00 Nurses

Commissioned off corps. United Health insurance program spec 20 20 00 Fed pers

States Public Health Serv 20 20 00 work

Confidential emps 20 20 00 Historian 20 20 00

Conservationist, range 20 20 00 Prof emps Import control off 20 20 00 Supv

Contract asst 20 20 00 Import spec team leaders 20 20 00 Supv

Cooperative student emps 20 20 00 Instructors at FAA Academy 20 20 00 Mgt off

Coordinator of banking and Instructors, status and rights 20 20 00 Teachers,

volunteer activities 20 20 00 Mgt off 30 24 00

Corpsmen asst supv 20 20 00 Supv Intermittent emps 20 20 00

Corpsmen supv 20 20 00 Supv Internal Revenue agent 20 20 00

County supv 20 20 00 Supv Janitor leader 20 20 00 Supv

Crew chiefs 20 20 00 Firefighters Lab rel adm pers 20 20 00

Criminal investigator 20 20 00 Conf emps, Lab rel off 20 20 00 Lab rel

guards adm pers

Custodial emps 20 20 00 Maint Lab rel spec 20 20 00 Mgt off

emps Language instructors 20 20 00 NTE

Customs insp 20 20 00 emps, WAE emps

Dep national dir 20 20 00 Mgt off Leave without pay status emps 20 20 00

Dep United States Marshal 20 20 00 Guards Liaison off 20 20 00 Supv

Design spec 20 20 00 Librarian 20 20 00

Dir of advertising and promotion 20 20 00 Mgt off Licensed vocational nurses 20 20 00 Nurses

Dir of marketing 20 20 00 Mgt off Lieutenants 20 20 00 Firefighters

Dir of program planning 20 20 00 Mgt off Maids 20 20 00

Dir of public affairs 20 20 00 Mgt off Intermittent emps

Dir, pers mgt training institute 20 20 00 Lab rel Maintenance and supply mgr 20 20 00 Supv

adm pers Maintenance emps 20 20 00

Dist conservationists 20 20 00 Supv Mgt analyst 20 20 00 Mgt off

Dist off and prof group branch spec 20 20 00 Mgt off Mgt interns 20 20 00

110
INDEX

M gtoff

Marine cargo planner 

Market analysis off 

Medical services tech 

Military emps

Military liaison and security spec 

Mining engineers

Miscellaneous documents examiner

Motor pool mgr

Museum curator

National dir

National labor rep

Nonappropriated fund emps

NTE emps

Nurse anesthetists

Nurse clinicians in operating

room and outpatient facility

Nurse coordinators (head nurse)

Nurses

Occupational health nurse

Off-duty mil emps 

Offset press operator 

On-call emps 

Operations officer 

Operations research analyst 

Operations spec 

Operators, telephone 

Organizational maintenance 

shop chief

Outdoor recreation planners 

Parachute packer and repairman 

Part-time emps

Pers clerical and assistance emps 

Pers equipment and survival tech

Pers mgt spec

Pers staffing spec

Pers tech 

Pers work, fed

Pharmacists

Physicist

Planning and procedure spec 

Planning and research asst 

Plumbers

Port dir at “one-man” ports 

Principal-teacher 

Printing off 

Probationary emps 

Procurement tech

Prof emps

Prof research chemist 

Program analysis off 

Program analysts 

Program eval spec 

Promotion mgr 

Public affairs off

20 20 00

supv 

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

mil emps 

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

Mgt off,

Supv 

Mgt off 

Supv 

Off-duty

Mgt off

Prof emps

Supv

Supv

Supv

Mgt off

Supv

Nurses

20 20

20 20

20 20

20 20

25 04 

20 20

20 20

20 20

20 20

20 20

20 20

20 20

00 Nurses 

00 Nurses 

00

00 Nurses;

04; 2512 08 

00

00 Supv 

00

00 Mgt off 

00

00 Conf emps 

00

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Prof emps 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00 Supv: 

pers tech 

20 20 00 Fed pers 

work, lab rel adm 

pers

20 20 00 Fed pers 

work, lab rel adm 

pers

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Fed pers 

work 

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00

20 20 00 Supv: pers 

tech

20 20 00; 05 04 00; 

20 04 04; 25 04 04 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Mgt off

Public information off

Purchase and hire emps 

Purchasing agent 

Quality assurance spec 

Quality control superintendent 

Quality control supv 

Range conservationists 

Realty spec 

Registered nurses 

Regular part-time emps

Replacement for regular emp

Residual emps 

Revenue off

Sales staff development off 

Seasonal emps 

Seasonal supv 

Secretary to

area dir, disl dir, lab rel dir,

regl and asst regl commissioners, 

regl and deputy regl dir

Secretary to 

administrative div chief, airways facility mgr, asst dist dir, 

dist mgr, audit div chief, 

collection and taxpayer serv div 

chief, dep natl dir, dist dir, dist 

mgr, natl dir, pers branch chief, 

pers off, spec asst to natl dir

Sergeant of guard

Shop chiefs

Social ins adm

Social ins spec

Spec asst to national dir

Special projects representative

Staff asst, sr

Storeroom supv 

Student emps 

Substitute teachers 

Supv

Supervisory accounting tech 

Supervisory clinical nurses 

Supervisory customs aids 

Supervisory customs insp 

Supervisory firefighter 

(structural), GS-6 and 7

Supervisory inventory mgt asst 

Supervisory voucher examiner 

Supply spec (battalion level)

Supply spec (battery level)

Surveying technician 

Surveyor, cadastral 

Tax auditor 

Teachers 

Team leaders 

Tech advisor 

Technicians-in-depth 

Telephone operators 

Teletypists

20 20 00 Mgt off; 

supv 

20 20 00 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Prof emps 

20 20 00 Prof emps 

20 20 00 Nurses 

20 20 00 Part-time 

emps

20 20 00 Temp 

emps 

20 20 00 

20 20 00 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00; 20 08 28 

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 Conf 

emps

20 20 00 Conf 

emps

20 20 00 Guards 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Fed pers 

work

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00

20 20 00 Teachers 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Nurses 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 Firefighters 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00 Mgt off, 

supv

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Prof emps 

20 20 00 Mgt off 

20 20 00

20 20 00

111
INDEX

Temporary clerk 

Temporary emps 

Temporary part-time emps

Tenant of activity

Term dep United States marshal

Term emps

Training instructor (social skills) 

Training off

Transportation operations asst 

(motor)

Unit supv 

Vista volunteers 

“WAE” emps

Wage board (also wage grade) 

Warehouseman leader 

Wildlife mgt spec 

Employee organization

Employee rights

Employee status effect on ULP

Equal rights in lab org

Erroneous advice by LMSA agents

Evidence

Adequacy of record 

A/S documents at hearings 

A /S pers as witnesses 

Burden of proof

Documents of A/S 

Exclusion

Improper acceptance

Limitations

Materiality

Post-hearing submission 

Record sufficiency 

Rejection of evidence 

Relevance of evidence 

Reopening record 

Exclusions from appropriate units 

Exclusions from EO coverage 

Exclusive recognition, waiver of 

Exclusive recognition under EO 10988 

Exclusive representative petitioner 

EO 10988, transitional problems 

EO 11491, and as amended 

Coverage

Sec. 1(b) Emps participation 

in mgt of lab org 

2(c) “Employee”

2(d) “Supervisor”

2(e) “Guard”

2(e) “Labor organization:

2(e)(2) Status as lab org 

3(b)(3) National security

20 20 00 Temp 

emps

20 04 16; 20 20 00 

Intermittent emps 

20 20 OO' Part-time 

emps, temp 

emps 

20 20 00

20 20 00 Term 

emps 

20 20 00

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Firefighters

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00 Supv 

20 20 00 Prof emps 

See: Labor 

organization 

35 08 00 

30 24 00 

55 12 04 

10 24 12

15 28 00; 20 0416

05 12 04; 30 12 00

05 12 04

See: Burden of

proof

05 12 04

25 08 08; 15 12 00 

30 12 00 

15 12 00 

15 12 00 

15 24 00

20 0416; 15 28 00 

15 12 00

15 12 00; 15 24 00 

15 24 00 

20 20 00

05 08 00 

10 28 00 

05 08 00 

10 28 00 

05 32 00

05 08 00

10 32 00; 35 08 04 

20 20 20 Vista 

volunteers, 

commissioned off 

corps, U.S. Public 

Health Service 

30 24 00 

20 04 16 

05 04 00

40 20 00; 50 00 00 

05 08 00

3(b)(4) Internal agency 

security

3(d) Unions of lab rel pers 

10(b) Criteria for appropriate unit 

10(b)(1) “Management official”; “Supervisor” 

10(bX2) Fed pers work 

10(b)6) Guards

10(b)(4) Prof emps

Non-guard union 

Negotiability 

Interference by 

agency

Discrimination by 

agency

Improper assistance 

Discrimination for 

complaint, testimony 

Refusal to grant 

recognition

Agency refusal to confer, consult, negotiate 

Interference by lab 

org 

Strike

Union refusal to confer, consult, negotiate 

Grievance or appeals 

procedure

Use of official time 

Units of management 

officials or supervisors 

CSC responsibilities 

Exhaustion of remedies, standards of 

conduct

Extent of organization

10(c)

11(c)(4)

19(a)(1)

19(a)(2)

19(a)(3)

19(a)(4)

19(a)(5)

19(a)(6)

19(b)(1)

19(b)(4)

19(b)(6)

19(d)

20

24(2) 

25(a)

Failure to cooperate 

Failure to serve documents 

Fed pers work 

Fixed term agreement 

Formal hearings 

Fragmentation of unit 

Free speech

Representation election 

Lab org members

Good faith 

Grievances 

Effect on ULP 

Unilateral adjustment 

Guards

Mgt of non-guard lab org 

Qualifications of lab org to 

represent

05 08 00; 15 12 00 

10 32 00

20 04 00 to 20 20 00 

20 20 00

20 20 00; 05 08 00

10 32 00; 20 20 00; 

20 16 04

20 04 04; 20 20 00;

25 04 04; 25 12 08

10 32 00; 2016 04 

35 28 00

35 04 04; 35 08 00

35 12 00 

35 16 00

35 20 00

35 24 00

35 28 00

40 08 00 

40 20 00

40 28 00

35 32 00

30 04 00; 35 28 00

10 32 00 

10 32 00

55 08 08 

20 04 04

15 20 00

05 28 00

05 08 00

10 24 12

See: Hearings

20 04 08; 20 0412

25 08 16 

55 12 08

35 28 00 

30 28 00

35 08 04; 35 28 00 

20 0416; 2016 04; 

20 20 00; 10 32 00 

10 32 00

10 32 00

112
INDEX

H

Handbilling

Head of agency authority to 

exclude emps from EO 

HE (ALJ) report and recommenda 

tions and exceptions 

Credibility resolutions 

Objections 

ULP 

Hearings 

Acceptance into evidence 

Adequacy of record 

Admissibility of evidence 

A/S documents at hearings 

A/S pers as witnesses 

Authority of HO 

Bar to petition

See: Campaign 

literature

05 08 00

30 16 00 

25 08 08 

30 16 00

30 16 00

15 28 00; 20 04 16

05 12 08

05 12 04

05 12 04

15 04 00

10 24 00

Burden of proof See: Burden of 

proof

Collateral issues 10 16 00

Continuance of hearing 15 04 00

Cooperation of parties 15 20 00

Cross examination, failure to allow 15 12 00

Documents 15 12 00

Documents, LMSA 05 12 04

Evidence See: Evidence

Exclusion of testimony 25 08 08

Failure to cooperate 15 20 00

HE (ALJ) report, no exceptions 39 16 00

Inadequate record 15 28 00; 20 04

Location 15 08 04

Materiality 15 12 00

Motions 15 08 00

Non-cooperation of parties 15 20 00

Official time to attend 05 08 00; 15 20 

35 08 04; 35 28

Post-hearing submissions 15 24 00

Postponement motion 15 08 04

Record sufficiency

Refusal to furnish information to

15 24 00; 20 04

HO 15 20 00

Rejection of evidence 15 12 00

Relevance of evidence 15 12 00

Remand 15 28 00

Reopening of record 15 24 00

Request for LMSA documents 05 12 04

Request for LMSA pers as witnesses 05 12 04

Role of HO 15 04 00

Rulings of ALJs 30 12 04

Showing of interest challenge 10 16 00

Situs 15 08 04

Stipulated record 30 20 00

Stipulations 20 04 16; 15 24

Submissions after hearing 15 24 00

Supplemental briefs 15 24 00

Testimony exclusion 

Time allowed for filing

25 08 08

supplemental briefs 15 24 00

Transcript correction 15 24 00

Witnesses 15 12 00

LMSA staff 05 12 04

Official time 05 08 00; 15 20 

35 08 04; 35 28

Written opening statement 

History of bargaining

I,J,K

Inadequate showing of interest

Inappropriate unit 

Incumbent lab org petitioner 

Instructors, status and rights 

Insufficient record 

Insulated period 

Insurance as campaign benefit 

Interest, showing of 

Interference with emps rights 

Internal security of agency 

Intervenors 

Intervention 

Challenge to

Showing of interest 

Status as lab org 

Dismissal 

Incumbent lab org 

Intervenors

Notification to potential 

intervenors

Opportunity to withdraw 

Post-decisional intervention 

Showing of interest 

Timeliness 

Investigation, ULP complaints 

Job classifications

Jurdisdiction of A/S

LMSA

Agents

As witnesses 

Erroneous advice 

Documents at hearing 

Labor organization 

Bill of rights 

Challenge to status 

Definition

Incumbent lab org petitioner 

Intervenor

Legislative—executive branch

representation

Management of

Meetings

Officer elections

Paid employee-members

Qualifications to represent

specified categories of emps

Remedial orders against

Sec. 19(b)(1)

19(b)(4)

19(b)(6)

Standards of conduct

Status as 

ULP

Legislative—executive branch

lab org

Literature

15 12 00

10 2412; 20 04 08

See: Showing of 

interest

20 04 00 to 20 20 00 

10 28 00 

30 24 00

15 28 00; 20 04 16 

10 24 12

25 08 20; 25 08 24 

1016 00; 2016 08 

35 08 00; 25 08 00 

05 08 00; 15 12 00 

See: Intervention

10 16 00 

10 20 00 

10 12 00 

10 12 00

1012 00; 20 24 08; 

20 24 12

10 08 00 

20 24 12 

20 24 04

10 16 00; 20 24 08 

10 12 00

30 08 00

See Emp categories 

and classifications 

55 08 04; 05 08 00

05 12 04 

10 24 12 

05 12 04

See: Bill of rights 

10 20 00 

05 04 00 

10 28 00

See: Intervention

05 08 00 

10 32 00 

55 12 04 

See: Elections 

5512 04; 5512 08

10 32 00 

40 08 00 

40 08 00 

40 20 00 

40 28 00

05 08 00; 05 20 00; 

10 20 00; 55 00 00 

10 20 00

35 00 00; 40 00 00

05 08 00

See: Campaign

literature

113
INDEX

M

Mgt off

Conflict of interest 

Markings on ballot 

Membership in a lab org, denial of 

Membership pins, buttons 

Merger at activity

Misrepresentation in campaign 

Moonlighters

Mootness

05 04 00 

10 32 00 

25 12 08 

40 32 00 

35 08 04

10 04 08; 10 04 20; 

20 16 08 

25 08 20

20 20 00 Off-duty 

mil emps

Standards of conduct 55 08 08

ULP 30 28 00; 35 20 00

Motions

Amendment of petition 15 08 08

Dismissal of petition 15 12 00

For witnesses and/or production

of documents 15 12 00

Post-hearing submissions 15 24 00

Postponement of hearing 15 08 04

Reopening of record 15 24 00

Rep cases, general 15 08 04

ULP 30 12 00

N

National guard, EO coverage 05 08 00

NLRB decisions, role of 05 24 00

National security emps 05 08 00

Negotiability 35 28 00

Negotiations 35 28 00

New showing of interest.

post-decisional 20 24 08

90-60 day “open” period 10 24 12

No-distribution rule 35 08 08

No-solicitation rule 35 08 12

Non-access to work areas by

non-emps 25 08 16; 35 08 04

Non-cooperation of parties 15 20 00

Nonwork area campaigning 35 08 08; 35 08 12

Nonwork time campaigning 35 08 08; 35 08 12

Notices

Compliance with ULP decision

and order 45 00 00; 50 00 00

Mailing of ULP notice 50 00 00

Notice of petition 10 08 00

Post-hearing notice of unit

determination 20 24 04

ULP 45 00 00; 50 00 00

Notification of compliance 10 08 00

Notification of potential intervenors 45 00 00; 50 00 00

Nurses 20 16 04

o

Objections to rep election

Access to employees 

Activity facilities 

Activity interference 

Agency rules on campaigning 

Anti-union literature

25 08 00 (See also: 

Unfair labor 

practices)

25 08 16 

25 08 16

25 08 16; 25 08 28 

25 08 16

35 08 04; 35 08 08

Burden of proof 25 08 20

Campaign misrepresentation 25 08 08

Challenges, distinguished from 25 12 12

Conduct of election 25 08 28

Electioneering 20 16 04

Free speech 25 08 16

HE (ALJ) report 25 08 08; 25 08 16

Impact on election 25 08 12 to 25 08 20; 

25 08 08; 25 08 24

Lack of specificity 25 08 08

Mail facilities of activity 

Non-employee access to activity

20 12 00

premises 25 08 16

Non^ntervening union 25 08 16

Procedure 25 08 08

Promises of benefit 25 08 24

Report on objections, HE (ALJ) 25 08 08; 25 08 16

Runoff election 25 08 08

Service 05 28 00

Side agreements 25 08 08

Timeliness 25 08 08

Timing of objectionable conduct 

Obligations of parties

25 08 12

Availability of witnesses 15 20 00; 30 08 00; 

35 08 04; 35 12 00

Bargaining See: Negotiations

Burden of proof See: Burden of proof

Cooperation in proceedings 15 20 00

Furnishing information 30 08 00

Official time for witnessed 15 20 00; 35 08 04; 

35 12 00

Occupational health nurse 25 04 04; 25 12 08

Off-duty hours negotiations 35 28 00

Off-duty mil emps 20 04 16; 20 20 00

Official time for witnesses 05 36 00; 15 20 00; 

35 08 04; 35 12 00

“Open period” 10 24 12

“Open season” 10 24 12

Opportunity to withdraw petition

P,Q

20 16 12

Pers work, fed 05 08 00

Petitioner, status of 

Petitions

AC: amendment, recognition or

10 28 00

certification

Agency doubt of representative’s

10 04 20

status (RA) 10 04 08

Amendment 15 08 08

Clarification of unit (CU) 10 04 16

Decertification (DR) 10 04 12

Dismissal 15 20 00; 2016 08; 

10 16 00; 10 24 00 

to 10 36 00

DR: Decertification 10 04 12

Opportunity to withdraw 20 24 12

Petitioner with exclusive recognition 

RA: Agency doubt of

10 28 00

representative’s status 10 04 08

Service 05 28 00

Position on ballot 

Post-decisional

10 12 00

Intervention 20 24 04

Notices 20 24 04

Showing of interest 20 24 08

114
INDEX

Withdrawal 

Post-hearing 

Rep cases 

ULP 

Posting

Pre-complaint requirements 

Standards of conduct 

ULP

Premature extensions of agreement 

Prerequisites

Principal-agent

Private sector law, role of

Procedure

Prof emps 

Promises of benefit 

Propaganda

Qualifications of lab org to 

represent specified categories 

of emps

Questions concerning ballot

R

RA petition 

Record 

Refusal to 

Bargain 

Cooperate

Sign consent agreement 

Regulations 

Agency regulations not 

binding on A/S 

Regulations of A /S

20 24 12 

15 24 00 

15 24 00 

30 16 00 

See: Notices

55 08 08

30 04 00; 30 08 00 

10 24 12

See: Requirements 

for

35 08 08 

05 24 00

See specific captions 

such as: Elections; 

objections; rep cases; 

ULP; standards of 

conduct

05 04 00; 25 04 04 

25 08 24

25 08 12 to 25 08 20; 

35 08 08; 25 08 24

10 32 00; 25 12 08

10 04 08 

See: Hearings

35 28 00

15 20 00; 30 08 00 

10 12 00

20 04 16

Sec. 202.2(f) Showing of interest 10 16 00

202.2(g) Status of lab org 10 20 00

202.3(b) Certification bar 10 24 08

202.3(c) Timeliness of

petition 10 24 00

202.3(d) Insulated period

following

withdrawal,

dismissal 10 24 12

202.3(e) Premature contract

extension 10 24 12

202.4(b) Notice of petition 10 08 00

202.4(f),

(g) Response to petition 15 08 04;

202.5 Intervention 20 24 04;

202.6(d) Request for review

service 05 28 00

202.7(c) Position on ballot 10 12 00

202.12(k) Continuance of

hearing 15 04 00

202.20(a) Objections: filing 25 08 06

service 05 28 00

202.20(d) Objections: burden

of proof 25 08 08

203.2 Requirements for

charge 30 04 00;

203.3(e) Report of

investigation 30 08 00

203.26

204.2(a)(1)

204.2(a)(2)

204.2(a)(5)

204.29

204.58

204.63

Compliance with 

A/S order 

Equal rights 

Free speech and 

assembly

Disciplinary action 

Election of officers 

Dismissal of 

standards 

complaint 

Complaints, 

election of officers 

205.5(a) Stipulated record

Rejection of evidence 

Related cases, concurrent 

Relevance of evidence 

Remand 

Remedy: ULP 

Against agencies 

Against lab org 

Reorganization of activity

Report of investigation, ULP 

Representation cases

AC petition 

Accretion

Activity refusal to respond to 

petition

Agency petition (RA)

Agency regulations not binding 

on A/S 

Agreement bar 

Amendment 

Certification 

Petition 

Recognition 

Appropriate unit

AA’s action 

Burden of proof 

Certification 

Amendment 

Bar 

Challenges

Clarification of unit (CU) 

Community of Interest 

Concurrent related cases 

CU petition 

Current representative 

status of petitioner 

Decertification 

DR petition 

Effective dealings 

Efficiency of operations 

Election bar to petition 

Eligibility

Evidence

Hearing officer role

45 04 00 

55 12 04

55 12 08 

55 08 08 

55 08 12

55 08 08

55 08 12 

30 20 00 

15 12 00 

05 20 00 

15 12 00 

15 28 00

45 04 00 

45 08 00

10 04 08; 10 04 20; 

20 16 28 

30 08 00

10 00 00 to 25 00 00 

See also specific 

topics such as: 

Appropriate unit; 

elections; hearings; 

objections to 

elections; etc.

10 04 20 

20 16 08

15 16 00 

10 04 08

20 04 16 

10 24 12

10 08 20 

15 08 08 

10 04 20

See: Appropriate 

unit

10 40 00

15 12 00

25 16 00

10 04 20

10 24 08

See: Challenges

25 20 00; 10 04 16

20 04 04

05 20 00

10 04 16

10 28 00 

10 04 12 

10 04 12 

20 04 08 

20 04 12 

10 24 04 

20 16 12; 20 20 00; 

25 12 00 

15 12 00 

15 04 00

115
INDEX

Intervention

Lab org status 

Motions 

Notice of 

Petition

Unit determination 

Objections

Obligations of parties 

Opportunity to withdraw 

Petitions, inconsistent 

Petitions, types 

Policy on consent agreements 

Post-hearing submissions 

Posting, notice of 

Petition.

Unit determination 

Procedure 

Elections 

Hearings 

Post-election 

Preliminary stages 

Qualifications to represent 

specified categories of employees 

RA petition 

Remand

Request for review rights 

Residual employees 

Self-determination 

Service of documents 

Severance

Showing of interest 

Stadards of conduct 

Stipulations of parties not 

binding on A/S 

Timeliness 

ULP allegations 

Unit determinations 

Voting procedures 

Request for

Appearance of witnesses 

Documents 

LMSA documents 

LMSA pers as witnesses 

Witnesses 

Request for review 

New evidence 

Objections to election 

Refusal to dismiss petition 

Service of 

Showing of interest 

Status as lab org 

Requirements for 

Charge 

Complaint 

Consent agreement 

Intervention 

Petition

Unit determination hearings 

Rerun election 

Residual unit 

Response to petition 

Revocation of certification 

Role of

Agency directives, ULP

20 24 04; 20 24 08; Agency head: exclusion of emps,

10 12 00 EO coverage 05 08 00

10 20 00 A/S 05 08 00

15 08 00 CSC guidance 35 04 04

HO' 15 04 00

20 24 04; 10 08 00 NLRB decisions 05 24 00

20 24 04 Runoff election 25 08 08

See: Objections 

15 20 00 

20 24 12 

10 44 00 Sections

10 04 00 EO See Executive

10 40 00; 15 28 00 order 11491, and

15 24 00

Regulations

as amended 

See: Regulations

10 08 00; 20 24 04 of A/S

20 24 04 Security emps 

Self-determination election

05 08 00

25 00 00 Unit determination 20 16 20

15 00 00 Voting procedure 25 04 08

25 00 00 Separate voting 25 04 00

10 00 00 Service of documents 25 08 08

Severance

05 28 00; 

20 16 04

10 32 00 Sham stipulation 20 04 16; 25 12 04

10 04 08 25 16 00

15 28 00 Showing of interest

10 36 00 Adequacy 10 16 00; 20 24 08

20 16 16 Agency mgt, involvement in 10 16 00

20 16 20; 25 04 08 Agreement bar, unilateral waiver of 10 16 00

05 28 00 Challenge at hearing 10 16 00

20 16 04 Challenge to intervenor 10 16 00; 20 24 08

10 16 00; 20 24 08 Challenge to petitioner 10 16 00

05 20 00; 10 20 00 Inadequate for larger unit found 

appropriate 20 24 08

20 04 16 Post-decisional 20 24 08

10 24 00 Request for review 10 16 00

15 16 00 Seasonal industries 10 16 00; 20 24 08

20 00 00 Validity 10 16 00

25 04 00 Sick-out 

Side agreements

40 20 00; 50 00 00

15 20 00; 35 08 04 Elections 25 08 08

15 12 00 Negotiations 35 28 00

05 12 04 Single employee unit 05 04 00

05 12 04 Solicitation of members 35 08 04; 35 08 12

15 12 00 Standards of conduct 05 08 00; 

10 20 00;

05 20 00; 

50 00 00

30 08 00 See also specific

25 08 08 captions such as:

10 36 00 Bill of rights; lab org

05 28 00 elections; free

10 16 00 speech

10 20 00 Bill of rights 55 08 08; 55 12 00

Elections 55 08 12; See also:

30 04 00 Elections; lab

30 04 00 org officers

10 40 00 Equal rights 55 12 04

10 12 00 Free speech and assembly 55 12 08

10 24 00; 10 40 00; Jurisdiction of A/S 55 08 04

15 08 08; 10 08 00 Procedure 55 08 00

10 40 00 Rep cases 05 20 00; 10 20 00

25 16 00 Statement or service of documents 05 28 00

20 16 16 Status as lab org 10 20 00

15 08 04 Stipulated record 30 20 00

25 16 00 Stipulations

Of parties not binding on A/S

30 20 00; 

20 04 16

15 24 00

35 04 04 Related to challenges 25 12 04

116
INDEX

Sham

Strike

Submissions after hearing 

Supervisors 

Supervisors’ unit 

Supplemental briefs

Tally of ballots 

Teletypists 

Temporary emps 

Terminal date of agreement 

Testimony 

Tie vote election 

Timeliness 

Allegation of ULP complaint

20 0416; 2512 04;

25 16 00

40 20 00

15 24 00

05 04 00

10 32 00

15 24 00

25 08 08 

20 20 00

20 04 16 

10 24 12 

See: Evidence 

25 16 00

Cease and desist orders 

Charge

Checkoff revocation

CSC guidance 

Complainant’s obligations

Complaint

Compliance 

Counterproposals 

Credibility resolutions by HE 

(ALJ)

CSC guidance 

Dilatory negotiations 

Discriminatory treatment 

Dismissal of complaint

45 00 00; 50 00 00 

30 04 00

35 24 00; 35 28 00; 

45 04 00 

35 04 04

30 04 00; 30 08 00; 

30 12 00

30 04 00; 3016 00; 

See also: Complaint 

45 00 00 

35 28 00

30 16 00 

35 04 04 

35 28 00 

35 08 04 

30 08 00 

35 08 04

Deficiency 30 08 00 Distribution of literature 35 08 08

Complaint Dues allotments revocation 35 24 00; 35 28 00;

Standards of conduct 55 08 08 45 16 00

ULP 30 08 00 Effect of other proceedings 05 20 00; 30 28 00

Correction of transcript 15 24 00 Emergency action 3528 00

Intervention 20 24 04; 10 12 00 Employee status, effect on ULP 30 24 00

Motion to dismiss ULP complaint 30 04 00; 30 08 00 Evidence See: Evidence

New evidence in request for review 30 08 00 Good faith negotiations 35 28 00

Objections to rep election 25 08 08 Grievance 35 28 00

Petition 10 24 00 Grievance or appeals procedure 35 32 00

Showing of interest 20 24 08; 1012 00 Grievance, unilateral adjustment 35 08 04; 35 28 00

Withdrawal 20 24 12 “Ground rules” in negotiations 35 28 00

Trade union See: Lab org HE (ALJ) report, no exceptions 30 16 00

Transcript See: Hearing Hearings 30 12 00; See also:

Transitional problems 05 32 00

Interference

Hearings

u Agency 35 08 00

Union 40 08 00

Undermining representative 

Unfair labor practices

Agency

35 28 00

30 00 00 to 45 00 00; 

See also specific 

topics such as: 

Complaint, ULP; 

evidence; hearings; 

objections to 

elections

Access to agency facilities

by non-intervenor 35 08 12

Directors 35 04 04

ULP 35 00 00

Agreement

Extension 35 08 04

Negotiation 35 08 04

Refusal to sign 35 28 00

Amendment of complaint 30 12 00; 30 16 00

Anti-union literature 35 08 04; 35 08 08

Appropriate unit 35 28 00

Arbitration

Award 30 28 00

Cancellation 35 08 04; 

35 28 00

35 24 00;

Effect of 30 28 00

Assistant to union 35 16 00

Authority of negotiator 35 24 00; 35 28 00

Bargaining request 35 28 00

Burden of proof 30 08 00; 35 12 00

By-passing exclusive representative 35 28 00

Interpretation of agreement 

Investigation and report 

Lab org ULP

Limited to complaint allegations 

“Make whole” order 

Mootness 

Motions 

Negotiability 

Negotiations 

Ground rules 

Side agreements 

No-distribution rule 

No-solicitation rule 

Non-access to work areas 

Nonwork area campaigning 

Nonwork time campaigning 

Notification of compliance 

Obligation to consult, confer 

or negotiate 

Post-hearing procedure 

Procedure 

Hearing 

Investigation 

Recognition, failure to accord 

Refusal to confer, consult, 

negotiate 

Agency 

Union

Refusal to sign agreement 

Related proceedings

30 28 00 

30 08 00 

40 00 00 

30 12 00 

35 20 00

30 28 00; 35 20 00

30 12 00

35 28 00

35 28 00

35 28 00

35 28 00

35 08 08

35 08 12

35 08 04

35 08 08; 35 0812 

35 08 08; 35 08 12 

45 00 00; 50 00 00

35 28 00 

30 16 00

3012 00; 3016 00; 

30 08 00

35 08 04; 35 28 00

35 28 00 

40 28 00 

35 28 00

05 20 00; 30 28 00

117
INDEX

Remedial orders 

Report of investigation 

Request for bargaining 

Requisites for charges and 

complaints

Responsibility for acts of individual 

Revocation of checkoff

Sections of EO

Solicitation for membership

Stipulated record

Strike

“Successorship” doctrine 

Terminating agreement 

Undermining exclusive 

representative 

Unilateral action 

Union ULP 

Unit appropriateness 

Waiver of EO rights 

Work stoppage 

Unilateral action 

Union 

Unit

35 20 00; 

30 08 00 

35 28 00

45 00 00 V-Z

30 04 00 

35 08 08

35 24 00; 35 28 00; 

45 04 00

See: EO 11491, and

as amended

35 08 12

30 08 00

40 20 00

35 24 00

35 28 00

35 28 00

35 08 04; 35 28 00

40 00 00

35 28 00

35 04 08

40 20 00

35 28 00

See: Lab org

See: Appropriate

unit

Validity of showing of interest 

Voter 

Eligibility 

Intent 

Prof emps 

Self-determination 

Voting groups 

Waiver of

Agreement bar rule 

Challenge to intervention 

EO rights

Exclusive recognition 

Withdrawal opportunity 

Witnesses 

LMSA pers 

Obligations of parties

Official time 

Request for appearance 

Testimony 

Work area campaigning 

Work stoppage

10 16 00 

2016 12 

20 20 00;

25 12 08 

25 04 04 

25 04 08 

25 04 00

10 24 12 

25 08 08 

35 04 08 

10 28 00 

20 16 12 

15 12 00 

05 12 04 

15 20 00; 

35 08 04; 

05 08 00; 

15 20 00; 

15 20 00 

35 08 08; 

40 24 00

25 12 00

30 08 00; 

35 28 00 

35 08 04 

35 08 04

35 08 12

118

☆ U.S. G O VERNM EN T P RINTING OFFICE: 1975 O -----5 7 4 - 0 7 0