REORGANIZATIONS

IMPACT ON BARGAINING UNITS 

AND 

IMPACT ON BARGAINING OBLIGATIONS
APPROPRIATE UNIT

 An (not the) appropriate unit

 Criteria Established – 5 U.S.C. 7112(a) 

 Employees Share in a Clear and 

Identifiable Community of Interest

 Unit Promotes Effective Dealings with the 

Operations of the Agency

 Unit Promotes Efficiency of Operations of 

the Agency Involved
APPROPRIATE UNIT

 Statute talks of an appropriate unit

 Statute does not describe THE appropriate 

unit

 Statute does not require THE MOST 

appropriate unit

 An organization may have many 

appropriate units

 Each unit must satisfy the criteria of 

section 7112(a)
COMMUNITY OF INTEREST

 Purpose: To ensure that it is possible for employees 

to deal collectively with management 

 Factors to consider – whether employees:

 Are part of same organizational structure

 Support same mission

 Are subject to same chain of command

 Have similar/related duties

 Are subject to same general working conditions

 Are governed by same personnel, LMR policies

 Are serviced by same personnel office
EFFECTIVE DEALINGS 

 Pertains to the relationship between 

management and the union 

 Factors to consider –

 Past collective bargaining experience of 

parties

 Level at which LMR policy is set by agency

 Location and scope of authority of 

personnel office which will administer the 

policies
EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS

 Whether the proposed unit bears a rational 

relationship to operational and organizational 

structure of the agency 

 Factors to consider –

 Effect of unit on agency costs, use of resources, 

productivity

 Level at which LMR policy is set by agency

 Location and scope of authority of personnel office 

administering policies
AGENCY REORGANIZATIONS

 Successorship Standard

 Developed to address what happens to 

collective bargaining units and employees’ 

elected representative when an agency 

reorganizes its operations

Lead Authority decision on successorship – U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Service, Port Hueneme, 50 FLRA 363 (1995) 
SUCCESSORSHIP STANDARD

 Successorship Standard

 Is a three-part standard

 A gaining entity is a successor and a union 

remains the exclusive representative of 

employees when all three successorship 

parts are met
SUCCESSORSHIP STANDARD

 Part One – Characteristics of the Unit

 An entire unit (or portion) is transferred; 

and

 Transferred employees are in an 

appropriate unit after the transfer;

and 

 Constitute a majority of the employees in 

this unit
SUCCESSORSHIP STANDARD

 Part Two – Continuity

 Gaining entity must have similar mission as former 

& employees perform similar duties, under similar 

working conditions

 The gaining and former entities 

 Need not have the exact mission

 Often, part of a mission is transferred

 Employees need not be performing the exact 

same duties, just similar ones

 For employees, was the change of employer transparent 
SUCCESSORSHIP STANDARD

 Part Three – Necessity for an Election

 When affirmative answers are given for the 

first and second parts, successorship will 

be found, unless other factors are present 

which require that an election be 

conducted among employees of the posttransfer unit
ELECTION NEEDED?

 If one union is involved and remaining 

employees in new unit had been 

unrepresented –

 An election is not necessary if employees 

who transferred from a bargaining unit 

constitute a majority of the employees in 

the new bargaining unit

 Simple majority requirement

Authority’s lead case: Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, 

California & BLM, Ukiah District Office, 53 FLRA 1417 (1998) (BLM)
ELECTION NEEDED?

 If one union is involved and does not 

meet the simple majority standard 

 An election will be ordered AS LONG AS

 There is evidence that a genuine 

representation question exists 

 Representation question exists when 30% 

of employees in unit seek an election 

Authority’s lead case: U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Florida, 62 FLRA 480, 

489 (2008)
ELECTION NEEDED?

 If more than one union’s 

employees are involved –

 An election is not necessary if one 

union is “sufficiently predominant” 

 More than 70% of the employees in 

the post-transfer unit had been 

represented by one union

Authority’s lead case: U.S. Army Aviation Missile Command, 

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 56 FLRA 126 (2000) (Redstone)
ELECTION NEEDED?

 Where employees at issue could be part 

of two petitioned-for appropriate units 

and no union is sufficiently predominant

 Employees vote on union to represent 

them

 Employees’ vote determines scope of unit –

self-determination election 

Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Columbus, 

Columbus, Ohio, 53 FLRA 1114, 1133-1134 (1998); Department of 

the Navy, Naval District Washington, 60 FLRA 469 (2004)
COMPETING CLAIMS

 Reorganization occurs and different parties argue 

different theories – Examples: 

 One party argues successorship to one 

appropriate unit, while another party argues 

successorship to a different, appropriate unit

 One party argues successorship, another accretion

 One party argues successorship, the other 

automatic inclusion in existing unit

 How does the Authority deal with this?
TWO SUCCESSORSHIP CLAIMS

 If there are competing successorship 

claims alleging different, appropriate 

units

 If it is found that a unit continues to be 

appropriate, that appropriate unit claim will 

be chosen, since it most fully preserves the 

status quo in terms of unit structure and 

the relationship of employees to their 

union 

Authority’s lead case: U.S. Department of the Navy, Commander, 

Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia, 56 FLRA 328 (2000)
CLAIMS OF SUCCESSORSHIP & 

ACCRETION

 One union claims that through successorship, 

it remains the exclusive representative 

 Another union claims employees accreted to 

its existing unit

 First, determine if there is successorship and 

if not, proceed to accretion

Authority lead decision: Department of Navy, Fleet & Industrial 

Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, 52 FLRA 950 (1997)
WHEN SUCCESSORSHIP & 

ACCRETION ARE CLAIMED

Are the transferred employees included in and

constitute a majority of, a separate, 

appropriate unit in the gaining organization?

NO

YES

Apply the remaining 

Port Hueneme criteria to

determine if the gaining

employer is the successor

and if union continues to

represent employees. If

successorship fails, then

Apply the accretion criteria

to determine if the 

employees accreted into an

existing unit.
ACCRETION

 Inclusion of a group of employees in an 

existing unit without an election

 Based on a change in agency 

operations or organization 

 Precludes employee self-determination

 Accretion is narrowly applied 

Department of Navy, Naval Air Warfare Command, Aircraft 

Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, 56 FLRA 1005, 1006 (2000)
ACCRETION

 What happens when unrepresented 

employees accrete to an existing unit?

 Existing unit employees must constitute a simple 

majority in the expanded unit, to avoid a question 

of representation, and election. BLM. 

 What happens when represented employees 

accrete to an existing unit?

 The “sufficiently predominant” standard applies. 

Redstone.
SUCCESSORSHIP & 

AUTOMATIC INCLUSION

 Successorship evaluates whether previously 

represented employees who are transferred 

retain their representative, even though the 

existing certificate does not reference that 

entity

Social Security Administration, Kissimmee District Office, Kissimmee, 

Florida, 62 FLRA 18, 23 (2007); Social Security Administration, Office of 

Disability Adjudication and Review, Falls Church, Virginia, 62 FLRA 513, 

515 (2008) 
SUCCESSORSHIP & 

AUTOMATIC INCLUSION

 Fort Dix automatic inclusion principle:

 Employees are automatically included in a unit 

where their positions fall within the express 

terms of a bargaining certificate & unit remains 

appropriate with their inclusion

 Bargaining certificate does not need 

amendment to show inclusion

Authority’s lead decision: Department of Army, Headquarters, Fort Dix, 

Fort Dix, New Jersey, 53 FLRA 287, 294 (1997)
BARGAINING OBLIGATIONS

 What happens to bargaining 

obligations? 

 While the petitions are being processed, 

parties are obligated to --

 Maintain existing recognitions

 Adhere to terms of existing contracts

 Fulfill all representational and bargaining 

responsibilities

See: FLRA’s Rules & Regulations, 5 C.F.R. 2422.34

Authority’s lead decision: Department of Navy, Naval Weapons Station, 

Yorktown, 55 FLRA 1112 (1999)
MATTERS TO CONSIDER

 When an agency/activity is reorganizing 

 Pre-petition meeting with unions involved 

 Section 2422.13(a) FLRA Regulations

 Contact an FLRA Regional Office

 Keep good records 

 Employees impacted by reorganization by bargaining unit 

status (BUS) code prior to and after reorganization

 Information/issuances regarding reorganization (e.g., 

OPNAV Notes; Federal Register announcements, etc.)
OTHER FLRA DECISIONS

 Social Security Administration, District Office 

Valdosta, Georgia, 52 FLRA 1084 (1997) 

(successorship in a consolidated unit)

 Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Center, Puget 

Sound, Bremerton, Washington, 53 FLRA 173 (1997) 

(same reorganization as in FISC, different result)

 Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center 

Columbus, Columbus, Ohio, 53 FLRA 1114 (1998) 

(reorganization involving two unions, functional unit)
OTHER FLRA DECISIONS

 Department of the Navy, Commander, Naval Base, 

Norfolk, Virginia, 56 FLRA 328 (2000) (competing 

successorship claims)

 Department of the Navy, Naval District Washington, 

60 FLRA 469 (2004) (functional units involved)

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection, 61 FLRA 485 (2006)

 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Connecticut 

Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut, 

61 FLRA 864 (2006)
OTHER FLRA DECISIONS

 Social Security Administration, Kissimmee District 

Office, Kissimmee, Florida, 62 FLRA 18 (2007) 

(successorship in consolidated unit)

 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Weather 

Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 62 FLRA 472 

(2008)(successorship not found; employees accreted 

into nationwide unit)
OTHER FLRA DECISIONS

 U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, 

Florida, 62 FLRA 480 (2008)(after reorganization 

several units found appropriate) 

 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Grand Coulee Power Office, 

Washington and Hungry Horse Field Office, Montana, 

62 FLRA 522 (2009) (triggering event needed before 

accretion principles can be applied)
OTHER FLRA DECISIONS

 U.S. Department of Navy, Commander, Navy Region 

Mid-Atlantic, 63 FLRA 8 (2008)(successorship found 

to bargaining unit of about 16 employees)

 U.S. Department of Navy, Carrier Planning Activity, 

Chesapeake, Virginia, 63 FLRA 63 (2009) 

(successorship found in professional unit; election 

ordered in nonprofessional unit)

 U.S. Department of Navy, Fleet Readiness Center 

Southwest, San Diego, California, 63 FLRA 245 

(2009)(successorship denied, accretion found)
OTHER FLRA DECISIONS

 U.S. Department of Army, Army Materiel Command, 

Headquarters, Joint Munitions Command, Rock 

Island, Illinois, 63 FLRA 394 (2009) (successorship 

found to two different Army activities, located at 

Rock Island; reorganization had substantially 

changed the appropriateness of existing unit)

 U.S. Department of the Navy, Commander, Navy 

Region Mid-Atlantic, Program Director, Fleet and 

Family Readiness, Norfolk, Virginia, 64 FLRA No. 143 

(2010) (successorship not found, and accretion was 

found)
ADVISORY

 These materials have been provided by the Federal 

Labor Relations Authority. They are intended to 

supplement the discussion portion of the training 

presentation and must be understood in the context 

of that discussion. 

 While this handout will assist in understanding 

various legal issues, it does not represent legal 

advice or guidance. Also, since each case depends 

upon its own unique facts and the application of 

various legal precedent, this handout should not be 

relied upon to predict the legal outcome in any 

particular case.