U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce

Department of Interior, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area and Fraternal Order of Police, First Federal Lodge I-F, SF-RP-00052, November 2, 2001, 57 FLRA No. 109.

The Authority, noting that "[f]or a petitioned-for bargaining unit to be appropriate, the employees at issue must have significant employment concerns or personnel issues that are different or unique from those of other employees[,]" turned down the union's application for review of a Regional Director's determination that a proposed unit of protection rangers was not appropriate because the employees at issue do not have a separate community of interest apart from other employees at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

The union sought an election among law enforcement park rangers (protection rangers) in the activity's Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Division of Visitor and Resource Protection (DVRP), Branch of Operations. Of the 330 employees at Lake Mead, the proposed unit would consist of 21 employees.

In determining whether the proposed unit was appropriate, the Regional Director (RD) noted that protection rangers carry weapons, investigate crimes, arrest individuals, receive specialized training, are subjected to extensive initial background investigations and recurring background checks, lose their positions if convicted of a felony or misdemeanor for domestic violence, could lose their positions if they didn't meet certain physical requirements, drive special police vehicles, participate in an enhanced retirement system, receive additional pay because of the inherent dangers of their work, could be reimbursed for special liability insurance, are held to a higher ethical standard than other employees, are subject to random drug testing, must maintain emergency medical technician certification, and are almost all required to live in the park so that they can respond quickly to emergencies.

Despite the above, the RD held that the weight of the evidence indicated that the protection rangers share a community of interest with other Lake Mead employees and are functionally and physically integrated with them. For example, the RD found that in the park's first district the protection rangers have worked with other employees on structural fires, search and rescue missions, and installing and maintaining boundary fencing. They have to live in required occupancy housing with other employees working at Callville Bay and share common office space and a gym with other employees at Boulder Beach. In the park's second district they live in common housing with resource management researchers and maintenance employees and engage in non-law enforcement duties such as litter cleanup, posting signs, raking out tracks, berming off areas, and maintaining Native American cultural sites. In one location they share a facility with interpretive staff and at another they assist maintenance employees in repair work. In the third district they have worked together with other employees on various projects, such as building a new fire station. In one location they live in common housing and work in the same building with maintenance employees. Other non-law enforcement activities include sign maintenance, fire station and ambulance operations, burro removal and monitoring cattle operations. And in one location in the fourth district they are called upon to protect archeological artifacts, patrol the waters by boat, handle nearly all medical calls. At another fourth district location they also maintain signs and fences and work alongside maintenance employees and a Resource Management Division employee.

Based on the above the RD found that protection rangers worked with other employees to accomplish the agency's mission and that even when performing law enforcement duties frequently interacted with and relied upon dispatchers and criminal investigators. Moreover, other employees may also be required to participate in specialized training for their positions, live in the park, pass background checks, meet medical requirements to keep their positions, fall within the same enhanced retirement system, and be commissioned. Finally, all park employees are serviced by the same personnel office and are affected by labor policies and working conditions set by the park superintendent. The RD accordingly concluded that protection rangers don't have a separate community of interest apart from other employees of Lake Mead.

The RD also found that the proposed unit wouldn't promote effective dealings or the efficiency of operations.

In its application for review, the union claimed, among other things, that the RD determined that the proposed unit didn't constitute the "most" appropriate unit, whereas the law only requires that a unit be appropriate. It also claimed that the RD made a number of prejudicial errors concerning matters of fact by discounting testimony of a protection ranger who described a lack of interaction between protection rangers and other employees at isolated locations, and the testimony of another ranger who testified he never engaged in committee activities, computer work, health and safety inspections, etc.

Before evaluating the union's claims, the Authority said the following:

For a petitioned-for bargaining unit to be appropriate, the employees at issue must have significant employment concerns or personnel issues that are different or unique from those of other employees. See FISC, 52 FLRA at 960; see also, Interior, 55 FLRA at 315.

It went on to reject the union's claim that the RD applied a "most" appropriate unit standard:

Nothing in the RD's decision supports the Petitioner's assertion . . . . Rather, the RD cited proper Authority precedent and accurately applied . . . precedent in determining that the proposed unit of protection rangers, while having some unique employment conditions, is integrated both functionally and physically with the other employees at Lake Mead. . . . The RD's determination that the protection rangers do not have significantly unique employment concerns that differ from other employees at Lake Mead . . . is supported by the record, as is his determination that protection rangers are both functionally and physically integrated with other employees of Lake Mead. See also Interior, 55 FLRA at 313, 315. [Emphasis added.]

FLRA also rejected the union's claim that the RD made substantial factual errors. Although one witness testified to his lack of interaction with other employees, an activity witness testified that protection rangers frequently help, and are helped by, other employees in performing their respective duties. "We cannot say that the RD clearly erred in crediting the latter testimony." Moreover, the testimony of the second witness "has little to do with the evidence ultimately relied upon by the RD to determine that protection rangers . . . share in a community of interest with other Lake Mead employees."

Since FLRA found that the RD didn't err in his community of interest analysis, it found it unnecessary to address, or adopt, the RD's conclusions regarding the effective dealings and efficiency of operations criteria.