Opinion ID: 755809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assuming Dispute is Related to Representation

Text: 18 We first examine TVA's argument that arbitration is inappropriate here because Article I.C. of the Articles of Agreement allows [t]he TVA official responsible for Labor Relations [to] resolve[ ] questions concerning the appropriateness of a proposed bargaining unit. 8 J.A. at 90 (Articles of Agreement: I.C.). Appellees respond by pointing to a statement made by TVA in a pleading it filed in a prior action brought by the Panel against TVA admitting that Article I.C. relates only to disputes between constituent unions of the Panel and not to disputes between a Panel constituent union and a union that is not a member of the Panel: With regard to disputes between salary policy unions, the Articles of Agreement make clear '[t]he Director of Labor Relations resolves questions concerning the appropriateness of a proposed bargaining unit.'  Appellees' Br. at 21, Addendum at 10 (Br. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss or For Summ. J., Salary Policy Employee Panel v. Tennessee Valley Auth., Case No. 1-89-12, E.D. Tenn.). Yet, this statement does not go so far as to assert that Article I.C. refers only to disputes among salary policy unions. In fact, the plain language of Article I.C. does not support such a limited reading, and Article I.D. of the Articles of Agreement, which seems to continue the discussion begun in Article I.C., 9 provides strong support for the view that Article I.C. does apply to disputes over the appropriateness of bargaining units whose representatives are not yet members of the Panel. Article I.D. allows [a] union that has been recognized as the representative of an appropriate bargaining unit [under Article I.C. to] seek to be a member of the Panel and thereafter participate in the collective bargaining process under the Articles of Agreement. J.A. at 90 (Articles of Agreement: I.D.). 19 Appellees' assertion that TVA's exemption from the NLRA bars TVA from arguing that Article I.C. is referring to the statutory NLRA concept of appropriateness of a proposed bargaining unit is equally unpersuasive. Appellees' Br. at 22. As we stated previously, while NLRA principles do not automatically apply to TVA, TVA is certainly free to bind itself to a particular concept through the inclusion of a mutually agreed upon provision in a collective bargaining agreement. The predecessor provision contained in the original collective bargaining agreement between TVA and the Panel specifically mentioned that [i]n defining appropriate units for collective bargaining purposes the principles generally utilized by the National Labor Relations Board will be applicable [and that q]uestions concerning the appropriateness of a proposed bargaining unit will be resolved by the Director of Personnel, (J.A. at 401 (Original Articles of Agreement Between TVA and Salary Policy Employee Panel: III)). Moreover, the portion of Article I.C. that refers to the idea of majority support for the representative is reminiscent of the analysis that is undertaken to determine whether a union deserves recognition as a representative under the NLRA. See 1 PATRICK HARDIN, THE DEVELOPING LABOR LAW 376 (3d ed.1992). In the NLRA context, a bargaining unit (a grouping of two or more employees aggregated for the assertion of organizational rights or for collective bargaining) is appropriate if the employees in it share a community of interests--a determination that is made upon consideration of several factors, including similarity in skill, interests, duties, and working conditions. Id. at 448-49; see also Mitchellace, Inc. v. NLRB, 90 F.3d 1150, 1157 (6th Cir.1996). Here, the resolution of the underlying issue would depend at least in part on whether these employees under the new classification share a community of interests with those in the bargaining unit represented by the OPEIU or with those in the bargaining unit represented by the Teamsters. See Mitchellace, Inc. v. NLRB, 90 F.3d 1150, 1156-57 (6th Cir.1996). The community of interests test is used not only to determine the proper unit for previously unrepresented employees but also to alter the scope of an existing represented unit or to clarify whether certain employees properly belong to an already established or generally defined bargaining unit. See 1-2 HARDIN, supra, at 451, 1816; Mitchellace, 90 F.3d at 1156-57. 20