[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35211-35214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17163]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY


Notice of Opportunity to Submit Amicus Curiae Briefs in 
Representation Proceedings Pending Before the Federal Labor Relations 
Authority

AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.

ACTION: Notice of the opportunity to file briefs as amici curiae in 
proceedings before the Federal Labor Relations Authority raising issues 
regarding: (1) the relationship between sections 7111(f)(1) and 7120 of 
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. 
7111(f)(1) and 5 U.S.C. 7120); and (2) the criteria to be used by the 
Authority in resolving representation cases under section 7111(f)(1) of 
the Statute arising from an agency reorganization where both 
successorship and accretion principles are claimed to apply.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Labor Relations Authority provides an opportunity 
for all interested persons to file briefs as amici curiae on 
significant issues arising in cases pending before the Authority. The 
Authority is considering the cases pursuant to its responsibilities 
under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 
7101-7135 (1994) (the Statute) and its regulations, set forth at 5 CFR 
part 2422 (1995), revised by 5 CFR part 2422 (1996). The issues concern 
how the Authority should: (1) determine whether a labor organization is 
subject to corrupt influences or influences opposed to democratic 
principles within the meaning of section 7111(f)(1) of the Statute; and 
(2) resolve representation petitions arising from a reorganization 
where both successorship and accretion principles are claimed to apply 
to the same employees.

DATES: Briefs submitted in response to this notice will be considered 
if filed by close of business on July 24, 1996.

[[Page 35212]]

Extensions of time will not be granted. The date of filing shall be 
determined by the date of mailing, as indicated by the postmark date. 
If no postmark date is evident on the mailing, it shall be presumed to 
have been mailed 5 days prior to receipt. If filing is by personal 
delivery, it shall be considered filed on the date it is received by 
the Authority.

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver briefs to James H. Adams, Acting Director, 
Case Control Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 607 14th 
Street, NW, Suite 415, Washington, D.C. 20424-0001.

FORMAT: All briefs regarding the relationship between sections 
7111(f)(1) and 7120 of the Statute shall be captioned ``Division of 
Military and Naval Affairs (New York National Guard), Latham, New York, 
Case No. BN-RO-40060, Amicus Brief.'' All briefs regarding the criteria 
to be used in resolving representation cases arising from a 
reorganization where both successorship and accretion principles are 
claimed to apply shall be captioned ``Department of Navy, Fleet and 
Industrial Supply Center, Case Nos. WA-CU-50061, WA-CU-50062 and SF-CU-
50071, Amicus Brief.'' Briefs shall also contain separate, numbered 
headings for each issue discussed. An original and four (4) copies of 
each amicus brief must be submitted, with any enclosures, on 8\1/2\ x 
11 inch paper. Briefs must include a signed and dated statement of 
service that complies with the Authority's regulations showing service 
of one copy of the brief on all counsel of record or other designated 
representatives. 5 C.F.R. 2429.27(a) and (c). Copies of the Authority's 
decisions granting applications for review in these cases and a list of 
the designated representatives for each case may be obtained in the 
Authority's Case Control Office at the address set forth below. Copies 
will be forwarded (by mail or by facsimile) to any person who so 
requests by contacting James H. Adams at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James H. Adams, Acting Director, Case 
Control Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 607 14th Street, 
NW., Suite 415, Washington, D.C. 20424-0001, Telephone: FTS or 
Commercial (202) 482-6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A summary of Division of Military and Naval 
Affairs (New York National Guard), Latham, New York, Case No. BN-RO-
40060, and Department of Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Case 
Nos. WA-CU-50061, WA-CU-50062 and SF-CU-50071, follows.

A. Division of Military and Naval Affairs (New York National Guard), 
Latham, New York, Case No. BN-RO-40060

1. Background

    On September 15, 1995, the Authority granted review of the Regional 
Director's Decision and Order in the captioned case under the 
Authority's regulations in effect at the time of the application for 
review, 5 CFR 2422.17(c)(1) and (3) (1995), on the grounds that: (1) a 
substantial question of law or policy is raised because of the absence 
of Authority precedent; and (2) the conduct of the hearing held or any 
ruling made in connection with the proceeding has resulted in 
prejudicial error. The Authority has directed the parties to file 
briefs addressing certain questions, as set forth below.
    The petition in this case, which was filed by the National 
Federation of Civilian Technicians (NFCT), seeks an election to decide 
the exclusive representative in a unit of employees of the New York 
National Guard. The Association of Civilian Technicians (ACT) currently 
is the exclusive representative for the unit and is the Intervenor in 
the case.
    Following the filing of NFCT's petition, ACT filed a challenge 
under section 7111(f)(1) of the Statute. It asserts that NFCT is 
subject to ``corrupt influences or influences opposed to democratic 
principles'' and asks that the petition be dismissed.
    The Statute provides that exclusive recognition shall not be 
accorded to a labor organization if the Authority determines that the 
labor organization is subject to corrupt influences or influences 
opposed to democratic principles. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7111(f)(1).
    Section 7120(a) of the Statute provides that an agency shall only 
accord recognition to a labor organization that is free from corrupt 
influences and influences opposed to basic democratic principles. 
Section 7120(d) directs the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-
Management Relations to prescribe regulations necessary to carry out 
the purposes of section 7120, and further provides that complaints of 
violations of this section shall be filed with the Assistant Secretary.

2. The Regional Director's Decision

    The Regional Director advised the parties that ACT's challenge 
raised issues concerning NFCT's compliance with internal union 
standards of conduct imposed by section 7120 of the Statute and 
concluded that because standards of conduct issues are committed to the 
exclusive jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary of Labor by section 
7120 of the Statute, they were not appropriate for investigation or 
adjudication in a representation proceeding before the Authority. 
Because there had been no decision by the Assistant Secretary that NFCT 
was subject to corrupt influences or influences opposed to democratic 
principles, the regional director directed that an election be 
conducted among the employees in the petitioned-for unit.

3. The Application for Review

    ACT filed an application for review and for a stay of the Regional 
Director's decision and order. It contends that section 7111(f)(1) of 
the Statute requires the Authority to determine whether a labor 
organization involved in a representation proceeding is subject to 
corrupt influences or influences opposed to democratic principles. NFCT 
filed a reply to ACT's application for review, and attached a letter 
from a regional director of the U.S. Department of Labor. The letter 
states that the Office of Labor-Management Standards of the Department 
of Labor had considered ACT's argument that NFCT was subject to corrupt 
influences and did not find that the officers of NFCT had violated 
standards of conduct set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7120.

4. Questions on Which Briefs are Solicited

    The Authority has directed the parties in this case to file briefs 
addressing the following questions:
    1. In making the required determination under section 7111(f) of 
the Statute, should the Authority rely on the investigation conducted 
by the Assistant Secretary pursuant to section 7120, or should the 
Authority conduct its own investigation?
    2. If the Authority relies on investigations conducted by the 
Assistant Secretary:
    a. What procedures should be used (e.g., should any pending 
Authority proceedings be placed in abeyance pending the Assistant 
Secretary's final action; should the Authority's regional director 
examine the Assistant Secretary's findings in a hearing)?
    b. How should the Authority proceed if no complaint has been filed 
with the Assistant Secretary under section 7120(d)?
    c. Should the Authority defer to the Assistant Secretary's findings 
and conclusions? What standard of review should be applied in reviewing 
such findings and conclusions?
    3. If the Authority conducts its own investigation:

[[Page 35213]]

    a. What procedures should be used (e.g., should the determination 
be made in an adversarial or nonadversarial proceeding)?
    b. What criteria should be applied to determine whether a labor 
organization is subject to corrupt influences or influences opposed to 
democratic principles?
    4. Do the answers to these questions depend on whether, at the time 
the section 7111(f)(1) issue is raised:
    a. a petition has been filed seeking to represent a unit that has 
no current exclusive representative;
    b. a petition has been filed seeking to decertify an exclusive 
representative; or
    c. there is an exclusive representative and no representation 
petitions are pending?
    As these matters are likely to be of concern to agencies, labor 
organizations, and other interested persons, the Authority finds it 
appropriate to provide for the filing of amicus briefs addressing these 
issues.

B. Department of Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Case Nos. 
WA-CU-50061, WA-CU-50062 and SF-CU-50071

    On June 24, 1996, the Authority granted, in part, applications for 
review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in United States 
Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk, 
Virginia, Case Nos. WA-CU-50061 and WA-CU-50062 (51 FLRA No. 114) (FISC 
Norfolk) and the Regional Director's Decision and Order in Naval Supply 
Center, Puget Sound, Case No. SF-CU-50071 (51 FLRA No. 115) (FISC Puget 
Sound).

1. Case Nos. WA-CU-50061, 50062--FISC Norfolk

    As a result of a reorganization, on March 1, 1993, the Department 
of the Navy created the Fleet and Industrial Supply Centers in Norfolk, 
Virginia (FISC Norfolk) and Puget Sound, Bremerton, Washington (FISC 
Puget Sound). As originally constituted, FISC Norfolk consisted of a 
headquarters operation at Norfolk, Virginia, the Cheatham Annex at 
Williamsburg, Virginia, and two detachments at Newport, Rhode Island 
and Colts Neck, New Jersey (the Leonardo Detachment). The approximately 
520 General Schedule (GS) and 330 Wage Grade (WG) employees at Norfolk, 
Virginia have been represented in separate bargaining units by the 
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 53, AFL-CIO (AFGE 
Local 53) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
Workers, Local Lodge 97, AFL-CIO (IAM Local 97), respectively. The GS 
and WG employees at Cheatham Annex have been represented by AFGE Local 
53 and IAM Local 97, respectively, in separate units at Williamsburg. 
Employees of the Newport and Leonardo Detachments have been 
unrepresented.
    In October and November 1994, FISC Norfolk established five 
detachments under its Acquisitions Group and four detachments under its 
Customer Operations Division, respectively. The FISC Norfolk Detachment 
at Yorktown, Virginia (Yorktown Detachment) consists of approximately 
26 GS and WG employees who were transferred from the Naval Weapons 
Station, Yorktown, Virginia, where they were represented by the 
National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-1, SEIU, AFL-CIO 
(NAGE Local R4-1). The FISC Norfolk Detachment at Charleston, Goose 
Creek, South Carolina (Charleston Detachment) consists of approximately 
23 GS and WG employees who were transferred from the Naval Weapons 
Station, Charleston, Goose Creek, where they were represented by the 
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2298, AFL-CIO (AFGE 
Local 2298).
    The petitions in Case Nos. WA-CU-50061 and WA-CU-50062 were filed 
by FISC Norfolk and sought to clarify the GS and WG units represented 
by AFGE Local 53 and IAM Local 97, respectively, by establishing that 
all of the transferred employees, including those from the Yorktown and 
the Charleston Detachments, had accreted to these units. Three other 
petitions were filed wherein, as relevant here, NAGE Local R4-1 and 
AFGE Local 2298 sought to retain representation of the unit employees 
transferred to FISC Norfolk from the Yorktown and Charleston 
Detachments, respectively.

2. Case No. SF-CU-50071--FISC Puget Sound

    A bargaining unit of approximately 265 GS and WG employees at FISC 
Puget Sound has been historically represented by the Bremerton Metal 
Trades Council (BMTC). In October 1993 and October 1994, FISC Puget 
Sound established two detachments. The FISC Puget Sound Detachment at 
Everett, Washington (Everett Detachment) consists of 6 employees who 
were transferred from the Naval Station Everett where they were 
represented by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). 
The FISC Puget Sound Detachment at Concord, California (Concord 
Detachment) consists of 21 employees who were transferred from the 
Naval Weapons Station, Concord, where they were represented by the 
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1931, AFL-CIO (AFGE 
Local 1931).
    The petition in Case No. SF-CU-50071 was filed by FISC Puget Sound 
and sought to clarify the GS/WG bargaining unit represented by BMTC by 
establishing that all of the transferred employees in the Everett and 
the Concord Detachments had accreted to the BMTC unit.

3. The Regional Directors' Decisions

    In FISC Norfolk, the RD found that all the transferred employees, 
including those located at the Yorktown and Charleston Detachments, had 
accreted to the AFGE Local 53 and IAM Local 97 bargaining units and 
granted the petitions for unit clarification. In FISC Puget Sound, the 
RD found that the Everett Detachment employees had accreted into the 
BMTC. The RD concluded that the Concord Detachment employees had not 
accreted into the BMTC unit because FISC Puget Sound was a successor 
employer.

4. The Applications for Review

    In FISC Norfolk, NAGE Local R4-1 and AFGE Local 2298 filed 
applications for review challenging the RD's use of accretion 
principles in resolving the issues presented by their petitions. In 
particular, AFGE Local 2298 maintains that the RD failed to apply 
current Authority precedent for determining successorship, as set forth 
in Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, 
California, 50 FLRA 363 (1995) (Port Hueneme). In FISC Puget Sound, the 
Activity filed the application for review challenging the RD's decision 
regarding the Concord Detachment as relying ``too heavily'' upon the 
Port Hueneme successorship criteria. The Activity maintains that a 
``literal application'' of Port Hueneme will lead to an increased 
number of bargaining units and ``government inefficienc[y].''

5. Question on Which Briefs are Solicited

    The Authority granted the applications for review in FISC, Norfolk 
and FISC, Puget Sound under 5 CFR Sec. 2422.17(c)(1) on the ground that 
there is an absence of, or the Regional Directors' decisions constitute 
a departure from, Authority precedent on resolving representation cases 
involving agency reorganizations where both successorship and accretion 
principles are claimed to apply. The Authority has directed the parties 
in the two cases to file briefs addressing the following question:


[[Page 35214]]


    In a representation case arising from a reorganization where 
both successorship and accretion principles are claimed to apply to 
the same employees, how should the Authority resolve the 
representation issues raised by the petitions?

    As these matters are likely to be of concern to agencies, labor 
organizations, and other interested persons, the Authority finds it 
appropriate to provide for the filing of amicus briefs addressing these 
issues.

    Dated: July 1, 1996.

    For the FLRA.
James H. Adams,
Acting Director, Case Control Office.
[FR Doc. 96-17163 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P