Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v53/53-017.html
Timestamp: 2016-09-29 00:04:23
Document Index: 531704275

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 46', '§ 47', 'art 458', '§ 7120', '§\n401', '§ 1961', '§ 458', '§ 458', 'art 2428', '§ 458']

53:0111(17)RO - - Division of Military and Naval Affairs, New York National Guard, Latham, NY and National Federation of Civilian Technicians and ACT - - 1997 FLRAdec RP - - v53 p111 | FLRA
You are hereHome 53:0111(17)RO - - Division of Military and Naval Affairs, New York National Guard, Latham, NY and National Federation of Civilian Technicians and ACT - - 1997 FLRAdec RP - - v53 p111 53:0111(17)RO - - Division of Military and Naval Affairs, New York National Guard, Latham, NY and National Federation of Civilian Technicians and ACT - - 1997 FLRAdec RP - - v53 p111
[ v53 p111 ] 53:0111(17)RO
The decision of the Authority follows: 53 FLRA No. 17 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ DIVISION OF MILITARY AND NAVAL
AFFAIRS (NEW YORK NATIONAL GUARD) LATHAM, NEW YORK (Activity) and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF CIVILIAN
TECHNICIANS (Petitioner/Labor Organization) and ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS (Intervenor/Labor Organization) BN-RO-40060 _____ DECISION AND ORDER ON REVIEW June 30, 1997 _____ Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; and Donald S.
Wasserman, Member. I. Statement of the Case By order dated September 15, 1995, the Authority granted the
application for review of the Regional Director's (RD) Decision and Order and
Direction of Election, filed by the Intervenor, Association of Civilian
Technicians (ACT), in the above-captioned matter.(1) ACT requested review of the RD's decision directing an
election based on a petition filed by National Federation of Civilian
Technicians (NFCT). The Authority denied ACT's motion to stay the election.
Instead, the Authority ordered that the election be held and that the RD
impound the ballots pending the Authority's final decision in this matter. The Authority granted review of the RD's decision based on ACT's
allegation that the NFCT is subject to corrupt influences or influences opposed
to democratic principles and, therefore, should not be accorded exclusive
recognition, under the provisions of section 7111(f)(1) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). On July 2, 1996, the Authority directed the parties to file
briefs, and published a notice in the Federal Register giving an opportunity
for all interested parties to file briefs as amici curiae, to
address certain questions.(2) In response, ACT filed a brief and the General Counsel of the
Authority (GC) and the Office of Labor-Management Standards of the Department
of Labor (DOL) filed amicus briefs.(3) For the reasons that follow, we affirm the RD's decision to direct an
election in this case. II. Background and RD's Decision In 1970, ACT was certified as the exclusive representative of a unit of
employees of the Activity, Division of Military Affairs, New York National
Guard (NYNG). In this case, NFCT filed a petition seeking an election to
represent the NYNG employees currently represented by ACT.(4) ACT asserted that the RD should
dismiss NFCT's petition on the basis that NFCT is subject to corrupt influences
or influences opposed to democratic principles and, therefore, that NFCT is not
entitled to exclusive recognition under section 7111(f)(1) of the Statute,
which provides that: exclusive recognition shall not be accorded to a labor
organization-- (1) if the Authority determines that the labor organization is
subject to corrupt influences or influences opposed to democratic
principles[.] ACT also filed a complaint under section 7120 of the Statute(5) with the Assistant Secretary of Labor, claiming that by the
same allegedly corrupt or anti-democratic conduct, NFCT violated the standards
of conduct for labor organizations. On August 25, 1995, DOL notified ACT that
the complaint was without merit, and that "[t]he OLMS National Office and the
Department of Labor's Office of the Solicitor concur with this decision."
Letter attached to NFCT's reply to ACT's application for review at 3.(6) Prior to the hearing in this case, the RD denied ACT's request that he
dismiss NFCT's petition. He concluded that allegations that a union is subject
to corrupt influences or influences opposed to democratic principles cannot be
adjudicated in a representation proceeding. At the hearing, ACT attempted to
introduce evidence bearing on its section 7111(f)(1) allegations, and NFCT
objected on the basis of the RD's earlier ruling that such issues may not be
adjudicated in a representation proceeding. The hearing officer sustained the
objections. The RD concluded that ACT's allegations against NFCT were within the
exclusive jurisdiction of DOL under section 7120 of the Statute. The RD held
that, absent a determination by DOL that NFCT is subject to corrupt or
anti-democratic influences, there is no basis for the Authority to make any
determination pursuant to section 7111(f)(1) or to investigate or adjudicate
such allegations in a representation proceeding. The RD concluded that
allegations that a labor organization is subject to corrupt influences or
influences opposed to democratic principles must be brought under section 7120,
and that processing of representation cases under the Statute should not be
delayed pending DOL determinations on such allegations. The RD based these conclusions on his interpretation of both Authority
precedent and precedent under Executive Order 11491 (Executive Order), citing
Charleston Naval Shipyard, 1 A/SLMR 609 (1970) (Charleston)
and Defense Logistics Agency, 5 FLRA 126, 127 (1981) (DLA) as
support for his conclusion that any Authority action under 7111(f)(1) must be
preceded by a DOL determination under section 7120. The RD stated that this
approach is consistent with private sector precedent under the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA), which precludes adjudication in representation cases of
disputes that should be considered in an adversarial proceeding in which an
accused union is afforded the full spectrum of due process. In addition, the RD
concluded that this approach supports the Authority's policy that questions
concerning representation must be resolved quickly. Consistent with his understanding of Charleston and DLA,
the RD concluded that when an allegation is made in a representation proceeding
that a labor organization is subject to corrupt or anti-democratic influences,
the RD must administratively determine whether DOL has found that the labor
organization violated the standards of conduct set forth in section 7120.
According to the RD, only if there has been such a finding would a petition by
an accused labor organization be dismissed. As there was no such determination
by DOL that NFCT is subject to corrupt influences or influences opposed to
democratic principles, the RD directed an election in this case. III. Positions of the Parties and Amici A. ACT's Application for Review and Brief on Review ACT maintains that the Statute does not permit the Authority to base a
section 7111(f)(1) determination solely on the extent to which DOL has acted on
a related standards of conduct complaint. ACT contends that the Statute
explicitly requires the Authority to determine whether a petitioning labor
organization is subject to corrupt influences or influences opposed to
democratic principles. In this regard, ACT asserts that the everyday meaning of
"determine" as used in section 7111(f)(1) implies "something more concrete than
the type of deferral which occurred here." ACT's application for review at 18
(citations omitted). According to ACT, "endless deference to the actions of the
Department of Labor will promote the very delay sought to be avoided here."
Id. at 20. Further, ACT argues that the RD's reliance on Executive Order and NLRA
precedent is inapposite. In this regard, ACT notes that the Executive Order
contained no provision comparable to section 7111(f) of the Statute, and the
NLRA contains no comparable provision. ACT contends that, as there are no
parallel provisions, precedent under the Executive Order and the NLRA has no
bearing on the Authority's statutory obligation to resolve an issue raised
under section 7111(f)(1) during the processing of a representation proceeding.
ACT argues that the Authority, not DOL, has sole jurisdiction to resolve issues
under section 7111(f)(1). Id. at 15. ACT also claims that it was prejudiced because it was not permitted to
submit evidence during the hearing to support its allegations that NFCT is
subject to corrupt influences or influences opposed to democratic principles.
ACT argues that, because the Statute explicitly requires that the Authority
determine whether a petitioning labor organization is subject to corrupt
influences or influences opposed to democratic principles, the Authority must
conduct an independent evidentiary hearing on its allegations against NFCT in
this case. In its brief on review, ACT argues in addition that the Authority must
have prosecutorial discretion so that it can decide how to use its resources.
Further, ACT contends that the Authority's decisions regarding section
7111(f)(1) matters involve complex issues of fact and of law that are
"particularly unsuited for resolution through non-adversarial processes." Brief
on Review at 7. Accordingly, ACT suggests that the use of appropriate
administrative safeguards will increase the likelihood that the Authority's
decisions regarding 7111(f)(1) issues "will be correct and will withstand
review." Id. at 8. B. NFCT's Opposition NFCT contends that the RD's determination and his reliance on Executive
Order and private sector precedent were correct. NFCT also argues that, even if
the Authority determines that allegations of corrupt or anti-democratic
influences are properly the subject of a representation hearing, ACT failed to
establish a prima facie case. NFCT further asserts that adopting
ACT's position would require the Authority to defer every election involving
allegations of corrupt influences until a hearing could be held, thereby
disrupting the election process and putting a burden on the Authority. C. GC's Amicus Brief The GC argues that section 7111(f)(1) should be construed to mean that
once DOL or another agency charged with upholding laws relating to the conduct
of labor organizations has investigated and made determinations of corrupt
practices, the Authority should determine whether these findings, as reviewed
by the Authority, warrant denial of exclusive representative status. The GC
proposes that the Authority determine on a case-by-case basis whether a labor
organization is subject to corrupt or anti-democratic influences only
after: (1) [A] party files an appropriate complaint, on a case by case
basis, under an appropriate statute, such as section 7120 of the Statute, the
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Statute (RICO) or through other appropriate criminal
or civil court proceedings; and (2) [A] third party, such as the Assistant Secretary of Labor who
administers section 7120 and the LMRDA or the Department of Justice, [which]
administers RICO, finds a basis for the alleged violation of law appropriately
before it; and (3) [T]he third party's findings of fact are referred to the
Authority in an appropriate proceeding. GC's brief at 5 (footnotes omitted).(7) The GC suggests that after a finding of corrupt practices by a third
party, the burden should shift to the accused labor organization to furnish
evidence to the Authority of its freedom from corrupt or anti-democratic
influences. Under this scheme, the Authority would weigh the evidence and, if
there were a reasonable basis to conclude that the labor organization violated
the law, the Authority could "deny or revoke certification either in an unfair
labor practice or a representation proceeding." Id. at 6. As the Statute
does not define corrupt influences or influences opposed to democratic
principles, the GC suggests that the Authority use section 7120 as an
analytical basis for its determination whether to deny or revoke exclusive
recognition under section 7111(f)(1). The GC asserts, however, that the
Authority is not empowered to independently investigate allegations that a
labor organization is subject to corrupt or anti-democratic influences, because
such allegations are based on section 7120. Id. at 13. The GC further
suggests that if no complaint has been filed with DOL under section 7120, the
Authority should refer the matter to the Assistant Secretary for a factual
finding. D. DOL's Amicus Brief According to DOL, the language of section 7111(f) places the
determination of whether a federal sector union is eligible for exclusive
recognition "squarely with the FLRA." DOL's brief at 2. DOL asserts that it has
no jurisdiction to make any determination or conduct any investigation into
whether a labor organization is corrupt or undemocratic. According to DOL, its
regulations implementing section 7120 of the Statute conform to the LMRDA,
which has no provisions for finding that unions in the private sector are
corrupt or undemocratic. Further, DOL states that neither the Statute nor the
LMRDA authorize DOL to preclude a public sector labor organization from serving
as an exclusive representative because it is "corrupt" or "undemocratic."
Id. at 4. Thus, DOL contends that matters concerning exclusive
recognition are within the sole jurisdiction of the Authority under sections
7111 and 7112 of the Statute. IV. Analysis and Conclusions This is a case of first impression concerning section 7111(f)(1) of the
Statute. The Authority has not previously issued a decision involving this
section, and the legislative history of the Statute sheds no light on the
appropriate interpretation and application of the section. Further, the
predecessor to the Statute, Executive Order 11491, contained no equivalent to
section 7111 and the NLRA has no similar provision.(8) However, both sections 7120(b) and 7111(f)(1) contain similar
prohibitions on corrupt and anti-democratic influences in Federal sector labor
organizations.(9) Consistent with the "whole
statute" principle of statutory construction, the meaning of an individual
section of a statute is determined in reference to the entire statutory scheme.
Sutherland, Stat. Const. § 46.05 (5th Ed.). That is, "all sections of an
act relating to the same subject matter should be considered together unless to
do so would be plainly contrary to the legislative intent. Insofar as possible;
the separate effect of each individual part or section of an act is made
consistent with the whole." Id. at § 47.06. Guided
by this principle, we interpret our obligations concerning claims filed under
section 7111(f) as discussed below. A. The Authority Makes Determinations Concerning Exclusive
Recognition under Section 7111(f)(1) of the Statute It is unquestioned that only the Authority has jurisdiction to
decide issues relating to the granting of exclusive recognition to labor
organizations representing employees in the Federal sector. Section 7111(f)(1)
states 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. Thus, freedom from
corrupt and anti-democratic influences is a requirement that must be met before
the Authority can certify a labor organization as an exclusive
representative. B. Framework for Deciding Challenges to Exclusive Recognition Under
Section 7111(f)(1) of the Statute 1. A Labor Organization Is Presumed Free from Corrupt and
Anti-Democratic Influences The Statute does not define the terms "corrupt influences" or
"influences opposed to democratic principles" in either section 7111(f) or
section 7120. However, section 7120(a) establishes a presumption that a labor
organization is free from corrupt and anti-democratic influences if the
union is subject to governing requirements that meet specified standards. This
is a rebuttable presumption; section 7120(b) provides that, regardless of
whether a union has subscribed to standards of conduct as provided in
subsection (a), it must furnish evidence of freedom from corrupt and
anti-democratic influences if there is reasonable cause to believe that the
union: (1) has been suspended or expelled from an international union or
federation of unions because of a demonstrated unwillingness to comply with
proper governing requirements; or (2) is, in fact, subject to influences that
are corrupt or opposed to democratic principles. For purposes of proceedings before the Authority to resolve a challenge
under section 7111(f)(1), and consistent with the "whole statute" principle of
statutory construction, we will henceforth apply the presumption established in
section 7120(a)--that a labor organization subject to certain delineated
governing standards is free from corrupt and anti-democratic influences--which
may be rebutted by establishing reasonable cause as provided in section
7120(b). We do so based on the factors noted above: (1) the similarity of
language and subject matter in section 7111(f)(1) and section 7120; (2) the
absence of any definition of "corrupt influences" or "influences opposed to
democratic principles" within the context of either section; and (3) the
absence of any indication that the two sections should be construed
differently. Moreover, a review of the DOL regulations on Substantive
Requirements Concerning Standards of Conduct, 29 C.F.R. Part 458, leads to
the conclusion that section 7120 envelops the corrupt or anti-democratic
influences referenced in section 7111(f)(1).(10) In these circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that
Congress intended the Authority to look to section 7120 when determining
whether a labor organization is presumed free from corrupt and anti-democratic
influences or whether that presumption has been rebutted. If a party
establishes reasonable cause to rebut the presumption, the Authority would then
determine whether the labor organization is rendered ineligible to serve as an
exclusive representative under section 7111(f). In a section 7111(f)(1) proceeding, the presumption in section 7120(a)
attaches if the labor organization is subject to the governing requirements set
out in section 7120(a)(1) through (4). This may be demonstrated by submission
of a constitution and bylaws that meet the criteria set forth in section
7120(a).(11) 2. Reasonable Cause May Be Established to Rebut the Presumption that
a Labor Organization is Free From Corrupt and Anti-democratic
Influences The presumption that a labor organization is free from corrupt and
anti-democratic influences, established by meeting the requirements of section
7120(a), may be rebutted by a showing that there is reasonable cause to believe
that the labor organization is not free from such influences. As noted above,
the standards for rebutting the presumption are set forth in section 7120(b).
Under section 7120(b), the presumption may be rebutted based on reasonable
cause to believe that: (1) the organization was suspended or expelled from, or
was otherwise sanctioned by, a parent organization, or federation of
organizations with which it had been affiliated, based on its demonstrated
unwillingness or inability to comply with the governing procedures set out in
7120(a)(1) through (4); or (2) the labor organization is in fact subject
to corrupt or anti-democratic influences. Based on the standards in section
7120 and the Authority's exclusive jurisdiction over representation matters, we
have developed the following guidelines for analyzing whether, under section
7111(f)(1), the requisite reasonable cause has been established to rebut the
presumption that the labor organization is free from corrupt and
anti-democratic influences. a. A Finding By A Third Party With Jurisdiction Over the Allegations
Asserted To Establish Corrupt Or Anti-Democratic Influences May Establish
Reasonable Cause for the Authority to Proceed With the Section 7111(f)(1)
Claim Where another agency or entity has jurisdiction over the matter
asserted to establish the requisite reasonable cause, the Authority will look
to the disposition of charges or claims before such third party in determining
the labor organization's eligibility to be accorded exclusive recognition.
Relying on third party findings will allow us to conserve resources, take full
advantage of the expertise of the third party, and administer the Statute in a
comprehensive manner, as intended by Congress. In this case, the ACT's allegations were also the basis for a section
7120 complaint filed with DOL. The mandate of section 7120 and the applicable
regulations suggest that most charges of conduct involving corrupt influences
or influences opposed to democratic principles are encompassed by DOL's
enforcement of standards of conduct.(12) Where, as in this case, the charges are so encompassed, the
need to avoid duplication of proceedings and ensure expeditious representation
case processing leads us to conclude that, in determining whether reasonable
cause has been established to proceed on a charge raised under 7111(f)(1), the
Authority will rely on the findings of DOL concerning conduct that is the same
or similar to conduct set forth in section 7120.(13) Accordingly, if a third party with jurisdiction over the conduct
alleged to establish the requisite reasonable cause finds a violation based on
the same facts raised by the section 7111(f)(1) challenge, the Authority will
accept that finding as evidence that there is reasonable cause to believe that
the presumption of freedom from corrupt and anti-democratic influences has been
rebutted. In such circumstances, consistent with the requirements of section
7120(b), the labor organization must furnish evidence to the RD of its freedom
from such influences. See Section IV.B.3, below. b. Dismissal By a Third Party, Such as DOL, Will Suffice to
Establish the Absence of Reasonable Cause to Believe That Denial of
Certification Is Required Under Section 7111(f)(1) If the third party with jurisdiction over the conduct alleged to
establish reasonable cause dismisses the charge before it, the Authority will
accept this as evidence that reasonable cause does not exist to overcome the
anti-democratic influences. In such circumstances, the Authority will proceed
accordingly. c. The Authority Will Stay Its Proceedings When a Case Is Pending
Before a Third Party That Is Based on the Same or Substantially Similar
Allegations That Support the Section 7111(f)(1) Claim In matters subject to a third party's jurisdiction, if a complaint is
pending before such a third party at the time a section 7111(f)(1) challenge is
filed, the Authority will stay its proceedings pending disposition of the
third-party proceeding.(14) Similarly, if allegations concerning corrupt or
anti-democratic influences are filed only with the Authority and are, in the
RD's view, subject to a third party's jurisdiction, the RD should instruct the
party filing the claim to first obtain a disposition of those matters that are
within the third party's jurisdiction. The RD may also explain that, in so
doing, the filing party should present its claim to the third party in a manner
that is acceptable in that forum. For example, if the matter lies within the
jurisdiction of DOL, the filing party should present the claim with the
Assistant Secretary as a standards of conduct violation under section 7120,
rather than as a claim of corrupt and anti-democratic influences. If such third party action is initiated within a reasonable time, the
Authority will stay any underlying representation petition until a decision is
rendered.(15) If such action is not initiated
with the third party within a reasonable time, the Authority, where
appropriate, will apply the presumption contained in section 7120 and proceed
accordingly. 3. When Reasonable Cause Is Established to Believe that a Labor
Organization Is Subject to Corrupt or Anti-Democratic Influences, the Burden of
Proof Shifts to the Accused Labor Organization Where it has been established that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a labor organization is subject to corrupt or
anti-democratic influences, the burden of proof under section 7111(f) shifts to
the accused labor organization to demonstrate that it is, in fact, free from
influences that would preclude recognition. In such cases, the Authority will
determine whether the evidence shows that a labor organization has met this
burden by demonstrating, for example, that: (1) the violation found by a
third party has been cured (for example, that sanctions imposed by a parent
organization have been lifted); or (2) the violation found by a third party is
in effect de minimis and thus is insufficient to warrant denial
or revocation of certification.(16) V. Application of Analytical Framework to This Case It is undisputed in this case that there is a presumption that NFCT is
free from corrupt and anti-democratic influences. Therefore, the threshold
issue is whether reasonable cause has been established to rebut that
presumption. As discussed above, the Authority will not further examine claims
that a union is subject to such influences if DOL has dismissed similar
allegations subject to its jurisdiction under section 7120.(17) In view of DOL's dismissal of ACT's claims in the section 7120
proceeding, we find no reasonable cause to believe that the Petitioner is
subject to influences that would preclude its certification. Accordingly, there
is no basis for further Authority proceedings to determine whether the
Petitioner should be denied the opportunity to be accorded exclusive
recognition on the ground that it is subject to corrupt or anti-democratic
influences. Therefore, we direct the RD to resume processing the representation
petition with the understanding that the Petitioner will be eligible to serve
as the exclusive representative if it wins the election. Accordingly, we remand
the case to the RD, with instructions to open and count the impounded ballots,
and to take appropriate action based on the outcome. Finally, there is no merit to ACT's contention that it was prejudiced
because it was not allowed to present evidence at the hearing to support its
claim that NFCT is subject to corrupt and anti-democratic influences. We have
found that by reason of DOL's dismissal of the allegations
brought under section 7120, reasonable cause has not been established to
believe that NFCT is subject to such influences. Therefore, NFCT is not
required to prove before the Authority that it is not subject to such
influences. Accordingly, in view of our finding that the Authority will not
proceed when, as here, a third party with jurisdiction has dismissed the same
allegations, we find no merit in ACT's assertion of prejudice. VI. Order This case is remanded to the Regional Director to take appropriate
action consistent with this decision. APPENDIX A Questions published in the Federal Register on July 5, 1996: 1. In making the required determination under section 7111(f)(1) of the
Statute, should the Authority rely on the investigation conducted by the
Assistant Secretary of Labor 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: 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
democratic principles? 4. Do the answers to these questions depend on whether, at the time the
section 7111(f) 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
APPENDIX B Section 7120 provides, in pertinent part: § 7120. Standards of conduct for labor organizations (a) An agency shall only accord recognition to a labor organization
that is free from corrupt influences and influences opposed to basic democratic
principles. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, an
organization is not required to prove that it is free from such influences if
it is subject to governing requirements adopted by the organization or by a
national or international labor organization or federation of labor
organizations with which it is affiliated, or in which it participates,
containing explicit and detailed provisions to which it subscribes calling
for-- (1) the maintenance of democratic procedures and practices including
provisions for periodic elections to be conducted subject to recognized
safeguards and provisions defining and securing the right of individual members
to participate in the affairs of the organization, to receive fair and equal
treatment under the governing rules of the organization, and to receive fair
process in disciplinary proceedings; (2) the exclusion from office in the organization of persons
affiliated with communist or other totalitarian movements and persons
identified with corrupt influences; (3) the prohibition of business or financial interests on the part of
organization officers and agents which conflict with their duty to the
organization and its members; and (4) the maintenance of fiscal integrity in the conduct of the affairs
of the organization, including provisions for accounting and financial controls
and regular financial reports or summaries to be made available to members.
(b) Notwithstanding the fact that a labor organization has adopted or
subscribed to standards of conduct as provided in subsection (a) of this
section, the organization is required to furnish evidence of its freedom from
corrupt influences or influences opposed to basic democratic principles if
there is reasonable cause to believe that-- (1) the organization has been suspended or expelled from, or is
subject to other sanction, by a parent labor organization, or federation of
organizations with which it had been affiliated, because it has demonstrated an
unwillingness or inability to comply with governing requirements comparable in
purpose to those required by subsection (a) of this section; or (2) the organization is in fact subject to influences that would
preclude recognition under this chapter. . . . . (d) Complaints of violations of this section shall be filed with the
Assistant Secretary. In any matter arising under this section, the Assistant
Secretary may require a labor organization to cease and desist from violations
of this section and require it to take such actions as he considers appropriate
to carry out the policies of this section. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. The petition in this case was filed
Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, 51 FLRA 934, 938 n.6 (1996). 2. 61 Fed. Reg. 35,211 (July 5, 1996).
The questions appear in Appendix A. 3. ACT moved for permission to file a
response to the GC's brief. Section 2422.17(g) of the Authority's Regulations
that apply to the petition herein (see note 1 above) provides in pertinent
part: "Except where the Authority rules upon the issue(s) in the order granting
review, the parties may, within ten (10) days after issuance of an order
granting review, file briefs with the Authority." However, there is no
provision in the regulations for the filing of a response brief as requested
here. Section 2429.26 of the Regulations provides that the Authority may, in
its discretion, grant leave to file "other documents" as deemed appropriate. In
the circumstances, we determine that the parties have had ample opportunity to
state their positions and reply briefs are not necessary. Therefore, the motion
is denied. ACT's motion referred to a brief it received on July 30, 1996, from the
Petitioner. We have determined that no such brief was filed with the
Authority's Office of Case Control. 4. NFCT's petition and ACT's challenge
to NFCT's eligibility for exclusive recognition are the culmination of disputes
and legal proceedings over a period of years. Initially, a dispute arose
between ACT and the officers of the New York Council of ACT Chapters (NYACT),
which was ACT's agent. As a result, in 1992 the leadership of NYACT formed
NFCT, and in March 1992 the membership of NYACT voted to disaffiliate from ACT
and to affiliate with NFCT. NFCT then filed a petition seeking to amend the
certification by changing the name of the exclusive representative from ACT to
NFCT based on the change of affiliation vote. That petition was dismissed by
the RD, and the Authority denied NFCT's application for review. 46 FLRA
1468 (1993). In the petition now before us, NFCT seeks exclusive recognition
through a representation election. 5. The pertinent portions of section
7120 appear in Appendix B. 6. ACT also filed an unfair labor
practice charge alleging violations of 7116(b)(1), (2) and (8) of the Statute.
The RD found that those allegations were also the subject of ACT's 7111(f)(1)
"challenge" in this RO proceeding. That charge was dismissed (BN-CO-50395,
April 10, 1995), and an appeal of the dismissal to the General Counsel was
denied on February 29, 1996. 7. The LMRDA is reported as Public L.
No. 86-257, 73 Stat. 519-46 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§
401-531 (1988)). RICO is Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,
Public L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 941 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961-68 (1988)). 8. To the extent that private sector
practices are instructive, we note that even though the NLRA does not provide
that labor organizations must be free from corrupt and anti-democratic
influences as a condition of certification, the National Labor Relations Board
has, on occasion, revoked a union's certification where it has been shown that
it was not meeting its responsibilities as exclusive representative. In such
cases, the Board has acted on the theory that, having issued a certification,
it has the power to police and revoke the certification on good cause shown.
Alto Plastics Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 850, 853 (1962).
See also A. O. Smith Corporation, 119 NLRB 621 (1957) (Board
revoked certification on its own motion after employees had been deprived by
petitioners of their franchise and right to representation). 9. As relevant here, section 7120
differs from section 7111(f)(1) only in that it uses the phrase "corrupt
influences and influences opposed to basic democratic principles" to describe
prohibited conduct, while section 7111(f)(1) omits the modifier "basic." As no
reason is alleged or apparent for construing these phrases in the two sections
differently, we attribute to them the same meaning. Hereafter, both are
referred to as "corrupt and anti-democratic influences." 10. Section 7120 specifies that DOL
shall prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out "the purposes of this
section" and also requires that the regulations conform to the "principles" of
the standards applied to unions in the private sector. DOL's regulations set
forth virtually the identical enforcement scheme for violations of the
Statute's union democracy provisions as apply to violations of the LMRDA.
Local 1219, American Federation of Government Employees v. Donovan, 683
F.2d 511, 515 n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Moreover, those regulations require that
"[i]n applying the standards contained in this subpart the Assistant Secretary
will be guided by the interpretations and policies followed by the Department
of Labor in applying the provisions of the LMRDA and by applicable court
decisions." 29 C.F.R. § 458.1. Congress passed the LMRDA to ensure
that elections "would remain free from the abusive and corrupt influences which
plagued the unions for years. Thus, the Act's ultimate goal was to provide for
'free and democratic' elections[.]" Brock v. Local 150, United Paperworkers
International, 670 F. Supp. 213, 216 (N.D. Ohio 1986), quoting
Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union, 391 U.S. 492 (1968).
Clearly, regulations governing a finding in a section 7120 proceeding, which is
based on the LMRDA model, would be pertinent to a section 7111(f)(1) challenge
before the Authority. 11. Section 7111(e) of the Statute
provides that a labor organization seeking exclusive recognition must submit to
the Authority a copy of its constitution and bylaws. 12. For example, corrupt or
anti-democratic influences within a labor organization could lead to election
irregularities, the raising of dues without members' permission, or expulsion
from membership without due process. Any of these alleged infractions could, in
turn, provide the basis for a DOL standards of conduct complaint alleging a
violation of the bill of rights of members of labor organizations, 29 C.F.R.
§ 458.2, and could result in a section 7120 violation. Thus, although
DOL does not make determinations as to whether a union is subject to corrupt
and anti-democratic influences so as to preclude the union from serving as an
exclusive representative under section 7111(f)(1) of the Statute, DOL's
investigations and findings regarding standards of conduct violations under
section 7120 will in most instances encompass allegedly corrupt or
anti-democratic activity. Cf. AFGE v. FLRA,
834 F.2d 174, 177-78 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (although Authority has
exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate unfair labor practice charges, the
Assistant Secretary of Labor and the FLRA have concurrent jurisdiction to
administer section 7120). 13. Although we anticipate that most
claims asserted under section 7111(f)(1) will, like the claim at issue here,
present allegations that also may be asserted as a standards of conduct
violation within the jurisdiction of DOL, we recognize that some may not
implicate section 7120. For example, the General Counsel suggests that
proceedings under RICO may also provide a basis for finding reasonable cause to
proceed with a section 7111(f)(1) allegation. Applying the approach we adopt
today with regard to charges within the jurisdiction of DOL, the Authority
would rely in such cases on the findings of the third party with jurisdiction
over the underlying claim. In other cases, it may be appropriate for the
Authority to look to other proceedings under the Statute, such as Authority
unfair labor practice decisions finding violations of section 7116(b)(1) based
on persistent, pervasive violations of the duty of fair representation or other
conduct by the accused labor organization that is incompatible with exclusive
recognition. In establishing procedures for deciding all such issues, we will
be guided by the importance of avoiding duplication of proceedings and
unwarranted delay in the processing of representation cases. In the event that
claims are presented to us that are not subject to another third party's
jurisdiction, or cognizable in an existing proceeding, we will address at that
time the appropriate procedures to follow in resolving the issues in dispute.
14. Where appropriate, the Authority
may direct that an election be held and the ballots be impounded pending the
third party's determination and the pending Authority decision under section
7111(f)(1). This will ensure that the vote reflects the wishes of the
bargaining unit at a time sufficiently proximate to the filing of the petition
to preserve the rights of the employees under section 7102 of the Statute as
well as the rights of the accused union should the Authority ultimately
determine that it is not subject to corrupt or anti-democratic influences. 15. Because of the damage to
representation rights that can be caused by delay in processing a
representational petition, however, the Authority will not stay section 7111
proceedings pending enforcement of a DOL decision under 5 C.F.R. Part 2428
or pending court review. The Authority also will not stay its section 7111(f)
proceedings pending third party action if it is clear that even if the facts
alleged were true, they would not support a finding of corrupt or
anti-democratic influences sufficient to render the labor organization
ineligible to serve as the exclusive representative. The RD would base such a
conclusion on a determination that a challenge is frivolous on its face or that
the documentary evidence establishes that any violation would be de
minimis or has been cured. See section IV.c.3 below. 16. In light of our disposition of
this case, it is not necessary at this time to elaborate on the specific
procedures the Authority will use to determine whether a labor organization has
satisfied this burden. 17. We note that among the protections
provided in DOL's regulations governing standards of conduct proceedings is the
right to appeal a DOL regional director's dismissal of a complaint to the
Assistant Secretary. 29 C.F.R. § 458.59. In the instant case, the record
does not establish that an appeal was taken. Moreover, the dismissal letter by
the DOL regional director noted concurrence by the OLMS National Office and the
Office of the Solicitor of Labor. Therefore, there is no section 7120 action
currently pending. Federal Labor Relations Authority