Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v62/62-046.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-14 14:51:47
Document Index: 431351348

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2422', '§ 7112', '§ 2422', '§ 2422', '§ 2422', '§ 2422', '§ 2422', '§ 2422']

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. (Petitioner) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 26, AFL-CIO (Incumbent Union) and National Air Traffic Controllers Associat | FLRA
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. (Petitioner) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 26, AFL-CIO (Incumbent Union) and National Air Traffic Controllers Associat
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. (Petitioner) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 26, AFL-CIO (Incumbent Union) and National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL-CIO (Incumbent Union) and Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFL-CIO (Incumbent Union)
[ v62 p207 ]
62 FLRA No. 46
EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 26, AFL-CIO
WA-RP-06-0026
This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 26, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.31. [n1] The application seeks review of the Regional Director's (RD) Decision and Order (D&O) granting in part and denying in part a petition filed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seeking the consolidation of two AFSCME bargaining units and the accretion into the consolidated unit of certain employees in bargaining units represented by the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFL-CIO (PASS) and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL-CIO (NATCA). NATCA and PASS filed oppositions to the application.
In his D&O, the RD found that the consolidation of AFSCME's two units was appropriate. As to the accretion issue, the RD determined that the Technical Operations Air Traffic Control (TO ATC) Facilities Office (TO ATC Facilities Office) was the successor employer and that both PASS and NATCA retained their status as exclusive representatives of the disputed employees.
In its application for review, AFSCME challenges certain wording in the RD's unit descriptions of the NATCA and PASS bargaining units. In this regard, AFSCME claims that the RD committed a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter because the description of the NATCA and PASS bargaining units conflicts with the RD's description of the consolidated AFSCME bargaining unit. As a consequence, AFSCME claims the NATCA and PASS bargaining unit descriptions erroneously encompass, at least in part, employees included in AFSCME's consolidated bargaining unit.
For the reasons that follow, we grant the Union's application for review because the RD committed a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter. In addition, we remand the case to the RD for further action consistent with this decision.
The FAA filed a petition seeking the consolidation of two bargaining units represented by AFSCME. The petition also sought a determination as to whether the realignment had resulted in the accretion into the consolidated unit of 24 employees from a bargaining unit exclusively represented by NATCA and 10 employees from a bargaining unit exclusively represented by PASS. [n2] D&O at 2. The 24 NATCA employees in dispute are engineers and, prior to the realignment, worked at FAA's Airways National Airspace System Implementation [ v62 p208 ] Engineering Center (ANI EC), located in Rosslyn, Virginia. The 10 PASS employees in dispute, who also worked at the ANI EC, are management and program analysts, computer specialists, management assistants, secretaries, and logistic management specialists. The 24 NATCA and 10 PASS employees were the only employees in the units involved here that worked at the ANI EC. As a result of the realignment, discussed below, the ANI EC was closed and all employees were moved to FAA Headquarters.
AFSCME did not oppose the consolidation of its units and took no position on the accretion issue. NATCA and PASS opposed the accretion.
A. The Realignment
As relevant here, in 2004, the FAA realigned its Headquarters offices to form the Air Traffic Organization (ATO), which includes, among other offices, the TO ATC Facilities Office. The TO ATC Facilities Office is comprised, in part, of the Integration Services Group and a component called National Engineering Support (NES). The TO ATC Facilities Office also includes various other groups set forth below in the discussion of NATCA's and PASS's oppositions.
After the realignment, the 24 NATCA and 10 PASS employees who worked at the former ANI EC were relocated to FAA Headquarters and placed under the TO ATC Facilities Office. The RD further found that "[m]ost of the engineers of [the] TO ATC Facilities [Office] work in NES[,]" and that there are "no AFSCME-represented engineers in the NES group." Id. at 8.
The RD also found that all of the employees represented by PASS who formerly worked at ANI EC prior to the realignment were transferred to the Integration Services Group. The RD further determined based on the evidence that there are no NATCA or AFSCME represented employees in the Integration Services Group.
B. The RD's Decision on the effect of the realignment on the bargaining units
In his D&O, the RD applied the legal framework for successorship set out in Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, Cal., 50 FLRA 363 (1995) (Port Hueneme), and determined that the following units were appropriate.
1. NATCA
The RD found that the 24 transferred NATCA employees constituted a majority of the professional engineers of the gaining entity, specifically the TO ATC Facilities Office. Further, the RD found that no other labor organization represents, or seeks to represent, these employees. The RD also determined that the realignment "did not substantially change the character and scope of the existing unit and that the employees should continue to be exclusively represented by NATCA." Id. at 16 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the RD concluded that the NATCA bargaining unit that resulted from the realignment is an appropriate unit and the TO ATC Facilities Office is the successor employer. The RD described the unit in pertinent part as follows:
All professional GS and FG Engineers . . . ; all AOS 200 Engineers; all AOS-510 Engineers; and all Aviation System Standards (AVN) Engineers, employed by . . . the [TO ATC Facilities Office]and Service Centers . . . .
All non-professional employees, management officials, supervisors and employees described in 5 U.S.C. [§] 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
Id. at 20 (the wording in italics is in dispute).
The RD also found that the PASS unit of 10 employees continued to be an appropriate unit. The RD further found that the transferred PASS employees constituted a majority of the nonprofessional employees of the gaining entity, the TO ATC Facilities Office. Additionally, according to the RD, no other labor organization represents, or seeks to represent, these employees. Based on the record, the RD found that the realignment "did not substantially change the character and scope of the existing unit and that the employees should continue to be exclusively represented by PASS." Id. at 18. The RD described the unit in pertinent part as follows:
All nonprofessional employees employed by . . . the [TO ATC Facilities Office] . . . .
All professional employees, management officials, supervisors, temporary intermittent employees, guards, flight standards employees [ v62 p209 ] assigned to the Eastern Regional Office, employees permanently assigned to the FAA Technical Center, and the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. [§] 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
Id. at 20-21 (the wording in italics is in dispute).
3. The Consolidation of the AFSCME Units [n3]
The RD found the following consolidated AFSCME unit appropriate under the provisions of § 7112(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). The RD described the unit in part as follows:
All professional and nonprofessional headquarters employees employed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Air Traffic Organization (ATO), including ATO employees with a direct reporting relationship to FAA Headquarters, and including FAA Headquarters employees in Assistant Administrator for Region and Center Operations (ARC), the Office of the Assistant Administrator for International Aviation (API), Office of Communications (AOC) and the Office of Administrator (AOA).
All non-headquarters employees, students, temporary employees with an appointment for one year or less, all management officials, supervisors, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. [§] 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
A. AFSCME's Application for Review
AFSCME contends that review of the RD's D&O is warranted because the RD committed a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter. In short, AFSCME claims that the RD's bargaining unit definitions are inaccurate, and should be amended. According to AFSCME, the RD's "amendments to the NATCA and PASS . . . bargaining unit definitions . . . are beyond the scope of the FAA's petition and infringe on AFSCME's bargaining unit" because the "new definitions" are not consistent with the employees' realignment. Application at 3 and 5 (citing D&O at 20-21).
Regarding NATCA, AFSCME asserts that the RD erroneously defined NATCA's bargaining unit by "substituting [TO ATC Facilities Office]" for the former ANI EC. Id. at 4. AFSCME maintains that this definition is "incorrect" because "[t]o say that NATCA represents all employees in [the] TO ATC [Facilities Office] goes beyond . . . the successorship NATCA . . . obtained in this case . . . ." Id. at 4. AFSCME argues that it is "clear" from the RD's D&O that "the 24 NATCA-represented employees were transferred to [the TO ATC Facilities Office, NES,]" which "comprises three of nine groups within [the] TO ATC [Facilities Office]." [n4] Id. Therefore, according to AFSCME, the definition of NATCA's unit "should be amended to read, in pertinent part, "National Engineering Support (NES), a component of [the] TO ATC [Facilities Office]." Id. (emphasis omitted). AFSCME contends that such a description would be consistent with the RD's factual findings. In so arguing, AFSCME asserts that the modified language would preserve NATCA's representation of employees in the NES, while leaving undisturbed AFSCME's continued representation of employees in the rest of the TO ATC Facilities Office.
Regarding PASS, AFSCME claims that similar to the NATCA bargaining unit, the RD's definition of PASS's bargaining unit should be corrected because the RD erroneously defined the PASS unit to include nonprofessional employees employed by the TO ATC Facilities Office. AFSCME maintains that this description is incorrect because PASS employees, who were formerly employed by ANI EC, are now performing work only in the "Integration Services Group," a single grouping of employees under the TO ATC Facilities Office. Id. at 5. According to AFSCME, to state that the PASS unit includes all nonprofessional employees in the TO ATC Facilities Office goes beyond the successorship found by the RD and infringes on AFSCME's bargaining unit. Therefore, AFSCME asserts that the wording in PASS's unit description, including within the unit all employees in the TO ATC Facilities Office, should be deleted and replaced with [ v62 p210 ] "Integration Services Group within [the] TO ATC [Facilities Office]/ATO-W." Id. (emphasis omitted).
AFSCME thus requests the Authority to grant review and "correct, or direct the RD" to correct the unit descriptions. Id.
B. NATCA's Opposition
NATCA "opposes AFSCME's position, as it does not comport with the record evidence[.]" NATCA Opposition at 2. In NATCA's view, this evidence shows that NATCA-represented employees exist outside NES within the TO ATC Facilities Office. Id. NATCA asserts that record evidence "show[s] that four . . . NATCA-represented employees work outside of the NES." Id. In this regard, NATCA asserts that an organizational chart that is part of the record shows that there is a NATCA-represented employee in each of the following TO ATC Facilities Office groups: (1) Facilities Services, (2) Facility Security Services, (3) Implementation Services, and (4) Power Services, in addition to the engineers in NES. [n5] NATCA further claims that the testimony of its chief witness supports its position.
Thus, NATCA contends that AFSCME's application should be denied "to the extent that it seeks to limit NATCA's . . . unit to only the [NES] component" of the TO ATC Facilities Office. Id. at 4. NATCA further argues that if the Authority decides to amend the NATCA unit description, it "should be clarified to exclude employees already represented by another labor organization." Id. (emphasis omitted). According to NATCA, at the hearing and in its post-hearing brief, it requested a certification which would exclude employees "already represented by another labor organization." Id. (quoting Post-Hearing Brief at 23 and Transcript (TR) at 192). NATCA further asserts that the current language in the unit description "could be interpreted as designating NATCA as the representative of all the engineers in the [TO] ATC Facilities [Office,]" and that it "never [was] NATCA's intention to claim representation of all engineers" under this Office. Id. at 4. Rather, according to NATCA, it sought only to show, as found by the RD, that the NATCA-represented employees continued to be represented by NATCA after their move to the FAA Headquarters. NATCA requests, therefore, that if the Authority determines that the unit description needs to be amended, it be "modified only by the addition of [the exclusionary]" language mentioned above. Id.
C. PASS's Opposition
PASS asserts that although it agrees that the RD's description of PASS's unit "could have been written more clearly, PASS disagrees with AFSCME's proposed correction to the PASS bargaining unit description." PASS Opposition at 2. PASS argues that the proposed correction "is too narrow and fails to take into account all of the PASS bargaining unit employees specifically found by the RD to be part of the successor employer." Id. at 2. Referring to FAA, Exhibit 5, PASS contends that PASS-represented employees referenced by the RD "all work within the . . . [TO] ATC Facilities [Office]. . . and are assigned to the EEOSH Services Group (one employee), the Integration Services Group (seven employees), the EnRoute/Flight Services Engineering Support Group (one employee)[,] and the Terminal Engineering Support Group (one employee) . . . ." Id. at 2-3 (footnote omitted).
PASS states that because there are "employees represented by other unions in the [TO] ATC Facilities [Office]," it specifically proposed that the words "excluding employees already represented by another labor organization" be included in the unit description. PASS Opposition at 3-4. According to PASS, adding this exclusion "would adequately clarify that PASS's bargaining unit only contains those PASS-represented employees . . . that were part of the [realignment] as discussed by the RD in his D&O . . . ." Id. at 4.
Accordingly, PASS requests that AFSCME's application be denied, or in the alternative, that the Authority amend the unit description to include the wording suggested by PASS.
The RD committed a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 2422.31(c)(3)(iii)
Under § 2422.31(c)(3)(iii) of the Authority's Regulations, the Authority may grant an application for review when the application demonstrates that there is a genuine issue over whether the RD has committed a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter. In this case, AFSCME alleges that the RD made clear and prejudicial errors concerning the unit descriptions of NATCA's and PASS's bargaining units, based on the conflict of those descriptions with the RD's description of the AFSCME bargaining unit.
For the reasons that follow, we find that the RD's descriptions of the bargaining units here involved constitute clear and prejudicial errors concerning substantial [ v62 p211 ] factual matters under § 2422.31(c)(3)(iii). See, e.g., United States Dep't of Transp., United States Coast Guard Fin. Ctr. Chesapeake, Va., 34 FLRA 946, 955 (1990) (Authority granted application and issued decision and order on application where RD inadvertently omitted exclusion of certain employees from unit description).
That the bargaining unit descriptions conflict is clear from the record. AFSCME's consolidated bargaining unit is described as including, among others, all professional and nonprofessional employees in the "Air Traffic Organization (ATO), including ATO employees with a direct reporting relationship to FAA Headquarters[.]" D&O at 21. ATO, as found by the RD, includes the TO ATC Facilities Office. Also, the record shows that AFSCME represents employees, including some engineers, in the TO ATC Facilities Office. See FAA Exh. 5, D&O at 8, TR at 150, 174.
As defined by the RD, NATCA's bargaining unit includes certain employees covered by the terms of the AFSCME unit description. In this regard, the RD described NATCA's unit as including engineers employed by the "[TO ATC Facilities Office]." Id. at 20. This wording conflicts with AFSCME's unit description, which includes, "[a]ll professional . . . headquarters employees employed by the . . . [FAA] Air Traffic Organization (ATO), including ATO employees with a direct relationship to FAA Headquarters[.]" Id. at 21. ATO, as mentioned above, includes the TO ATC Facilities Office. Because the wording "all professional headquarters employees" in AFSCME's unit description encompasses engineers employed by the TO ATC Facilities Office, id., NATCA's unit description, encompassing the same employees, conflicts with AFSCME's unit description. Because two units of exclusive recognition cannot include the same employees, the RD's conflicting descriptions, which would result in such dual representation, constitutes a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter under § 2422.31(c)(iii).
The RD's description of the PASS bargaining unit reflects a similar error. The RD described PASS's unit as including "[a]ll nonprofessional employees employed by the . . . Technical Operations Air Traffic Control Facilities [TO ATC Facilities Office] . . . ." Id. at 20. As with the NATCA bargaining unit description, the RD's description of the PASS unit conflicts with the RD's description of AFSCME's consolidated bargaining unit which includes, among other employees, all nonprofessional employees employed by the ATO, which includes the TO ATC Facilities Office. Thus, the RD's conflicting descriptions of the AFSCME and PASS bargaining units also constitutes a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter under § 2422.31(c)(iii).
Having determined that the RD committed clear and prejudicial errors in describing the bargaining units here involved, we next address AFSCME's suggested amendments to the unit descriptions. For the reasons discussed below, we find that such amendments would not accurately describe the units. In this regard, AFSCME proposes that NATCA's unit description be limited to employees in the NES component of the TO ATC Facilities Office. See Application at 4. However, the record does not support AFSCME's proposal. Contrary to AFSCME's suggestion, the record shows that NATCA represents employees in the TO ATC Facilities Office outside of NES, including employees in the Facilities Services Group, the Facility Security Services Group, the Implementation Services Group, and the Power Services Group. See FAA Exh. 5.
Similarly, AFSCME's proposal regarding PASS's bargaining unit description is unsupported. AFSCME argues that PASS's unit description should be limited to representation of employees in the TO ATC Facilities Office, Integration Services Group. See Application at 5. However, the record shows that PASS represents employees assigned to the TO ATO Facilities Office outside of the Integration Services Group. Thus, employees represented by PASS work in the EEOSH Services Group, the Terminal Engineering Support Group and the EnRoute/Flight Services Engineering Support Group. See FAA Exh. 5.
NATCA's and PASS's proposed remedies for the RD's errors also would not resolve this problem. NATCA proposes to make its unit description accurate by stating among the exclusions "all other professional engineers employed and permanently assigned to the Washington headquarters, [and] any employees already represented by another labor organization . . . ." TR at 192; see also, NATCA Opposition at 4. PASS makes a similar suggestion, proposing to add as an exclusion from its unit "employees already represented by another labor organization." PASS Opposition at 3-4 (citing Tr at 194, 195). However, NATCA's and PASS's proposed exclusionary language does not address, and would not resolve the conflict between affirmative provisions of AFSCME's consolidated unit description, which incorporates in the unit "all professional and non-professional headquarters employees employed by . . . [the] Air Traffic Organization (ATO)," and the affirmative provisions of NATCA's and PASS' unit descriptions, which, by including employees in the TO ATC Facilities Office, a sub-group [ v62 p212 ] of the ATO, D&O at 21, would extend NATCA's and PASS's certifications to employees also encompassed by AFSCME's unit description. Similarly, without clarity regarding the relevant unit descriptions, the addition of wording excluding employees "represented by another labor organization" creates confusion.
Additionally, we find the record is insufficient to enable us to determine how to accurately amend the unit descriptions. In this regard, as indicated in FAA Exhibit 5, all three Unions represent employees in the TO ATC Facilities Office subgroups. Although the record provides information concerning the positions of employees represented by NATCA and PASS in these subgroups, see FAA Exh. 6, the record does not include similar information concerning the positions held by AFSCME unit employees. Thus, the record does not provide a basis for delineating the AFSCME unit from the NATCA and PASS units in a particular TO ATC Facilities Office subgroup based either on the type of employee involved (professional or nonprofessional), or on the particular positions that specific employees hold.
For example, FAA Exhibit 5 shows that the EEOSH Services Group includes employees represented by PASS and AFSCME. However, the record is not clear as to whether the employees represented by AFSCME in this group are professionals or nonprofessionals, nor does the record reflect what positions the AFSCME-represented employees hold. See FAA Exh. 6. With this limited information, we are unable to accurately delineate the AFSCME and PASS units as to the EEOSH Services Group based either on the professional or nonprofessional classification of employees, or on the positions held by the employees represented by AFSCME and PASS. In these circumstances, the case must be remanded to the RD to correct the erroneous descriptions of the bargaining units here involved.
Furthermore, the factual errors reflected in the RD's conflicting descriptions of the bargaining units also appear in the RD's analysis applying the successorship criteria set forth in Port Hueneme to the NATCA and PASS units. See D&O at 15-16. The RD's failure to delineate the various bargaining units is contrary to the basic principle that "a successorship finding can be made only if the employees at issue are included in a separate appropriate unit." United States Dep't of the Navy, Fleet & Indus. Supply Ctr., Norfolk, Va., 52 FLRA 950, 959 (emphasis in original); see also, e.g., United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Nat'l Insts. of Health, Nat'l Inst. of Envtl. Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 62 FLRA 84 (2007) (upholding an RD's determination that a geographically separated unit of 11 employees who were part of a centralized and integrated organization with a new, unified mission, did not satisfy the standards for successorship under Port Hueneme). Accordingly, to the extent that the RD's failure to accurately describe the bargaining units in his decision stems from error in the RD's successorship analysis, the RD is directed on remand to reexamine and clarify that analysis as well. [n6]
We grant the application for review. The case is remanded to the RD for further action consistent with this decision. [ v62 p213 ]
Before the realignment, the bargaining units were described in the certifications of representative as follows:
1. AFSCME
Unit 1 -- AFSCME, Council 26, AFL-CIO, Case No. WA--RP-0036
All professional and non-professional headquarters employees employed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, in the Office of the Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions (ARA).
All non-headquarters employees, students, temporary employees with an appointment for one year or less, any employees already represented by another labor organization, all management officials, supervisors, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. [§] 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
D&O at 2; Jt. Exh. 3b.
Unit 2 -- AFSCME, Council 26, AFL-CIO, Case No. WA-RP-90125
All professional and non-professional headquarters employees employed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, in (1) the Office of the Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services (ATS), (2) the Office of the Assistant Administrator for Regional and Center Operations (ARC), (3) the Office of Public Affairs (APA), (4) the Office of the Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and International Aviation (API) and (5) the Office of the Administrator (AOA).
All non-headquarters employees, including all employees of Air Traffic System Command Center (ATSCC) in Herndon, Virginia, all employees in the AEU, APC and ALC division of the Office of the Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and International Aviation (API), any employees already represented by another labor organization, all management officials, supervisors, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. [§] 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
D&O at 3; Jt. Exh. 3b.
All professional GS and FG Engineers and Architects employed by the National Airways System, Engineering Division; all AOS 200 Engineers; all AOS-510 Engineers; and all Aviation System Standards (AVN) Engineers, employed by the Federal Aviation Administration in Regional Airways Facilities Divisions, the National Airspace System Implementation Engineering Center and Service Centers including those assigned to the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center and the FAA Technical Center.
All professional GS and FG Engineering and Architects employed and permanently assigned to Washington Headquarters, non-professional employees, management officials, supervisors and employees described in 5 U.S.C. [§] 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
D&O at 3; Jt. Exh. 5.
All nonprofessional employees employed by the National Operations Division, AOP-100, Herndon, Virginia, the Atlantic Operational Control Center Division, AOP-700, Hampton, Georgia, the MidStates Operational Control Center Division, AOP-800, Olathe, Kansas, the Pacific Operational Control Center Division, AOP-900, San Diego, California, the Regional Airway Facility Divisions, National Airspace Systems Engineering Center and Implementation Centers and the Eastern Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration.
All professional employees, management officials, supervisors, temporary intermittent employees, guards, flight standards employees assigned to the Eastern Regional Office, employees permanently assigned to Washington Headquarters, the FAA Technical Center, and the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. [§] 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
D&O at 4; Jt. Exh. 4.
Footnote # 1 for 62 FLRA No. 46 - Authority's Decision
5 C.F.R. § 2422.31 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
Footnote # 2 for 62 FLRA No. 46 - Authority's Decision
Descriptions of the bargaining units of AFSCME, PASS, and NATCA, prior to the organizational realignment, are set forth in the Appendix to this decision.
Footnote # 3 for 62 FLRA No. 46 - Authority's Decision
The consolidation of AFSCME's bargaining units is not in dispute.
Footnote # 4 for 62 FLRA No. 46 - Authority's Decision
We note, however, that AFSCME states in another part of its application that "[o]ne NATCA-represented employee was transferred to the Implementation Services Group, which is one of the nine groups in [the] TO ATC [Facilities Office]." Application at 2 n.1 (citing Tr at 104). According to AFSCME, the three groups that comprise NES do not include the Implementation Services Group. AFSCME states that it is not seeking to represent any NATCA-represented employee in the Implementation Services Group.
Footnote # 5 for 62 FLRA No. 46 - Authority's Decision
NATCA refers to FAA Exh. 5, which is an organizational chart that shows the nine groups under the TO ATC Facilities Office sub-services and their Union affiliations.
Footnote # 6 for 62 FLRA No. 46 - Authority's Decision
Member Pope notes that there is no contention before the Authority that the RD erred in his successorship analysis. Indeed, AFSCME states its express agreement with that analysis. See Application for Review at 3, 5. Thus, provided the RD is able to accurately describe the relevant units on remand, Member Pope sees no need for this issue to be addressed further.