text:
'Legal Department as a Service' Project Wins Funding
9th August 2021 artificiallawyer Legal Data Ecosystem 0
A project to build a 'legal department as a service' (LDaaS) platform aimed at helping smaller companies without their own inhouse legal teams, has won funding as part of a €191 million package of support for 16 data infrastructure initiatives across Europe. It is estimated the project will receive about €12m ($14m).
The LDaaS or 'virtual legal department', which will operate through the creation of a legal data ecosystem, was proposed by the Germany-based Liquid Legal Institute (LLI) – (see story about their work on building an open-source NLP library) – and has been funded by GAIA-X, an initiative backed by European governments to help digital data harmonisation across the Continent.
Or, as GAIA-X explained: '[The aim is to] connect centralised and decentralised [data] infrastructures in order to turn them into a homogeneous, user-friendly system. The resulting federated form of data infrastructure strengthens the ability to both access and share data securely and confidently.'
One major reason for this is that European nations speak a large number of languages, and although in theory the European Union is one entity, in reality every country has seen their own mix of data infrastructures evolve at a local and industry sector level. The challenge there is that they don't necessarily work with each other.
OK, so the need to share data and have data standards across borders makes a lot of sense. But what has this got to do with legal tech and the law? As LLI explained: 'For companies – especially for start-ups and SMEs without a legal department – legal transactions are associated with very high transaction costs.
'This is due to several reasons, including the lack of a digital marketplace with non-proprietary and open standards for the collaboration of law firms, legal tech service providers, public administration, and courts.'
So, to that end, together with partners from industry and research, LLI has set itself the goal of creating this ecosystem, initially focused on Germany. This will also have its roots in the ideas behind an earlier project called The Common Legal Platform.
Artificial Lawyer asked Bernhard Waltl, board member at LLI and a Legal Operations Officer at car giant, BMW, if he could expand a bit on what this is all about.
– This sounds very interesting, but what exactly are you trying to build here?
It is not 100% clear what it would be in the end. If it would be, we wouldn't need a research project and with research institutions involved.
But, we can say that from LLI's perspective it will be a workspace with marketplace functionalities, with a high focus on ecosystem service, such as vendors offering professional legal services.
The pilot will focus on creating a virtual legal department, one could say a Legal Department as a Service, for SMEs and start-ups.'
– Got it, so could we perhaps define it this way: that it will be a 'virtual legal dept where law firms are connected, along with legal tech vendors, to provide a service to companies that are too small to have their own legal teams'?
Yes, we can live with that description.
– A company can then contact this platform and ask legal questions and get legal documents, all of which would be supported by a number of tech applications?
Yes, we can also live with that description.
– Companies without legal teams will naturally have to pay for this service?
Yes, we are focused on a freemium model, since some services will be free of charge, and others will be available with a cost model which needs to be defined.
– How much will this funding be for?
The GAIA X initiative funds 16 projects with a total amount of €191 million Euros. We cannot tell you the exact value of our project. However, you can roughly estimate, because all projects will be funded more or less equally. The actual funding is still subject to a budget approval by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.
– How will you spend the money?
The money will be distributed within the project consortium, which consists of nine different partners. The partners within the consortium (see note below) were carefully selected to cover expertise in the legal industry, software technology and development, research and technology transfer, and business development. Furthermore, the consortium covers well-established companies on the market as well as non-profit organisations and start-ups.
The project will start in 2022 and will last for at least three years.
– What will success look like?
The project is successful if the consortium develops a Digital Legal Ecosystem as a marketplace that is accepted by supply-side and demand-side.
The proof-of-concept is a virtual legal department that flexibly scales depending on the needs of the company, which is either a start-up or SME for the pilot phase.
Success includes the establishment of a strong community of additional partners in the tech field who are open to collaborate and let the platform grow, either with additional commercial offerings, or by strengthening the federated services, which will be free of charge.
We consider this project funding as an opportunity to kick off an MVP that demonstrates the huge potential for the whole legal industry. The fact that GAIA X is supporting us is a strong signal that Digital Sovereignty is essential for platforms in the legal space – not only for Europe.
Thanks, and good luck!
P.S. the partners of the consortium are at present:
Ebner Stolz Mönning Bachem mbB, ESCRIBA AG, FZI Forschungszentrum, Informatik, Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Join GmbH, NAIX Technology GmbH, STP Informationstechnologie GmbH and Unterschied & Macher GmbH
LawtechUK Sets Out Road Map For New ADR Platform
Fixed Fee Marketplace, Legal Nodes, Bags $300k, Targets UK Growth


text:
FLRA.gov
U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority
Introduction to the FLRA
FLRA Leadership
Protecting rights and facilitating stable relationships among federal agencies, labor organizations, and employees while advancing an effective and efficient government through the administration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
Feedback about www.FLRA.gov
Let us know what you think about our new and improved website by emailing us at EngagetheFLRA@flra.gov.
Components & Offices
The Federal Service Impasses Panel
Office of Case Intake and Publication
Overview of Procedures
Settlement Judge Program
Settlement Judge Program Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Office of the Solicitor
Office of the Executive Director
Is the FLRA hiring?
Find a listing of all of the FLRA's current job openings.
Find a listing of FLRA contacts that you can call for more information.
File a Case
Unfair Labor Practice
Negotiation Impasse
Ready to file a case?
Find everything you need to know about filing a case with the FLRA.
Authority Decisions
Administrative Law Judges Decisions
Federal Service Impasses Panel Decisions
Solicitor's Briefs and Court Decisions
Archival Decisions, Legislative History, & Foreign Service Decisions
Authority Quarterly Digest Reports
Archival Decisions
Find historical decisions of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations and the Federal Labor Relations Council, as well as Foreign Service Labor Relations Board decisions.
View the legislative history of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Civil Service Reform Act, and the Foreign Service Act.
The Statute & Regulations
Information by Case Type
FLRA Job Postings
Upcoming FLRA Training
Training Contacts
Training Slides
Find training slides and other written materials from all of your favorite FLRA training sessions.
Check out our web-based trainings available through HR University at no charge for all federal employees.
[Decision Number]
United States Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union/Petitioner)
70 FLRA No. 99
AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
(Union/Petitioner)
WA-RP-17-0007
DECISION AND ORDER
ON REVIEW
Before the Authority: Colleen Duffy Kiko, Chairman, and Ernest DuBester and James T. Abbott, Members
(Member DuBester dissenting)
Decision by Member Abbott for the Authority
Statement of the Case
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking to consolidate Agency bargaining units represented by the Petitioner and its constituent locals. In her attached decision and order, Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) Regional Director Jessica Bartlett (RD) found that it was appropriate to consolidate eleven units into one larger unit, to be represented by the Petitioner. The Agency and the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2 (Local 2) filed, with the Authority, applications for review of the RD's decision. On October 26, 2017, the Authority granted the applications but deferred action on the merits.
The main question before us is whether a clear and identifiable community of interest exists for the proposed consolidated unit. Because, based on the record before us, no such clear and identifiable community of interest exists, we reverse the RD's decision. And because the parties in this case entered into a stipulation of facts that does not create a sufficient record to support consolidation, we find it appropriate to dismiss the petition, rather than remanding for the RD to make further findings.
Background and RD's Decision
In November 2016, the Petitioner filed a petition, in WA-RP-17-0007, to amend twenty bargaining-unit certifications in order to consolidate the units into a single unit. One month later, the Petitioner amended its petition to include two additional bargaining units.[1]
The Agency and the Petitioner stipulated to the following facts. The Agency is a component of the Department of Defense. The Agency's mission is to provide, operate, and assure command and control, information-sharing capabilities, and a globally accessible enterprise information infrastructure in direct support to joint warfighters, national-level leaders, and other mission and coalition partners across the full spectrum of operations.
The Agency is organized into four centers: (1) the Development and Business Center, (2) the Center for Operations, (3) the Resource Management Center, and (4) the Fifth Estate Center. The overall Agency Director is a U.S. Army Lieutenant General, and the leaders of all four centers report to him. In January 2017, the Agency implemented a new organizational system under the "line-of-business" model. Not all duties or functions are performed at each geographic location.
The Agency's headquarters implements Agency-wide human resources (HR) policy and internal guidelines with which all locations are obligated to comply. The Agency's headquarters also determines the Agency's mission and has discretion in distributing Agency work to be performed by each of the Centers and subcomponents, in furtherance of the Agency's mission; however, the Centers and subcomponents in different geographical areas generally maintain their own workloads and workflows. Center or subcomponent leadership has discretion in implementing supplemental guidance. Although local guidance cannot interfere with the headquarters-issued policy or guidelines, the local guidance may be more restrictive.
The Agency contains one Employee and Labor Relations Office that serves the Agency as a whole. The Agency employs HR Field Advisors who provide assistance with personnel and labor-relations matters, including contract negotiations, grievance resolution, and any other personnel-related issues. These HR Field Advisors are duty stationed at different Agency field sites throughout the country, and each support specific components. All HR Field Advisors report to the Chief of the Employee and Labor Relations Office, who in turn reports to the Chief of the Agency's Civilian Personnel Division, located at the Agency's headquarters.
The Agency and Local 2 filed position statements opposing the consolidation sought in the petition in WA-RP-17-0007, and specifically argued that no community of interest existed. In its statement, the Agency argued that employees in the proposed unit perform different and unrelated missions, and that they have a variety of different job classifications related to the specific missions at different locations. Further, subordinate commanders possess local command authority over personnel, labor matters, and conditions of employment, and these commanders receive personnel and labor-relations assistance from HR employees in the field rather than headquarters. The Agency argued that employees at different offices within the Agency have different and separate interests from those of other employees elsewhere, and are subject to different chains of command. The Agency also argued to the RD that conditions of employment under a new organizational system had not yet been implemented.
In its statement, Local 2 argued that employees support different missions and are subject to different chains of command, levels of supervision, and personnel and labor‑relations policies. It argued that employees have different duties, job titles, work assignments, and conditions of employment. Local 2 argued that employees have distinct local concerns. It also argued that there was no history of cross-unit bargaining or interchange among employees.
B. RD's Decision
In her decision, the RD noted that § 7112(d) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute) allows consolidation of two or more bargaining units represented by the same exclusive representative if the Authority considers the larger unit to be appropriate.[2] Under § 7112(a) of the Statute a unit may be determined to be appropriate if it will: (1) ensure a clear and identifiable community of interest among the employees in the unit; (2) promote effective dealings with the agency involved; and (3) promote efficiency of the operations of the agency involved.[3]
In examining the appropriate-unit factors, the RD determined that the employees shared a clear and identifiable community of interest, and that consolidation would promote effective dealings with, and efficiency of the operations of, the Agency.[4] In reaching this conclusion, the RD found that "[e]ach Agency location impacted by this petition, no matter where geographically located, is working in support of the same mission, and is part of the same chain of command, ultimately reporting to [the Agency Director] Lieutenant General."[5] She found that the Agency's HR office implements Agency-wide HR policy and guidelines, and that Agency headquarters distributes work to be performed at each location. The RD also noted that while the "work/duties" performed "may differ slightly from location to location, the completion of that work helps achieve an identical end goal."[6]
The Agency and Local 2[7] both filed applications for review of the RD's decision on August 28, 2017. The Petitioner filed an opposition to the Agency's application on September 12, 2017,[8] and to Local 2's application on October 2, 2017.[9] And, as noted above, on October 26, 2017, the Authority granted the applications but deferred action on the merits.
Preliminary Matters
A. The Petitioner's opposition to the Agency's application is timely.
The Agency filed a motion arguing that the Petitioner's opposition to its application is untimely because it was not filed within ten days of the Agency's service of its application on the Petitioner. The Agency argues that it served the Petitioner with its application on August 28, 2017, and so, the Petitioner's opposition, which was filed on September 12, 2017, is untimely.[10] The Agency served the Petitioner via commercial delivery service.[11]
Under the Authority's Regulations, a party may file with the Authority an opposition to an application for review within ten days after the party is served with the application.[12] However, the Authority's Regulations provide parties an additional five days to file a response to a document that has been served on the parties by "first-class mail or commercial delivery."[13] As the Agency served its application on the Petitioner via commercial delivery, the opposition is timely and we consider it.[14]
B. We deny the Petitioner's request to withdraw its petition.
After the Authority granted review and deferred action on the merits, the Petitioner filed (1) a request to withdraw its original, underlying petition, and (2) a notice stating it had withdrawn its petition. As nothing in the Authority's Regulations permits the Petitioner to withdraw its petition at this late stage of the proceeding, the Authority will exercise its discretion to decide whether to grant the Petitioner's request.[15]
As the Authority recently noted in U.S. DOL (DOL),[16] a charging party may not unilaterally withdraw its charge without FLRA approval in the unfair-labor-practice (ULP) context.[17] And, once the FLRA's General Counsel has issued a complaint in a ULP case, certain settlement agreements are "subject to approval by the Authority."[18] While the ULP process differs from the representation process, it demonstrates that once a proceeding has reached a certain stage, the FLRA has institutional interests in resolving the dispute.
The FLRA has spent considerable time and resources attempting to resolve the parties' dispute. The Petitioner filed its petition on November 15, 2016.[19] Since then, the FLRA's Washington Regional Office, including the RD, led an investigation, assessed evidence, conducted research, and issued a decision on the merits of the parties' dispute. More recently, the Authority processed the Agency's and Local 2's applications, reviewed the legal and factual issues presented on appeal, and notified the parties that the application raised legal issues that warranted further review. The Petitioner does not explain why now, after more than sixteen months, it seeks to withdraw its petition after the Agency and Local 2 brought this dispute to the Authority by filing applications for review and the Authority notified the parties that the applications warranted further review. Neither the Agency nor Local 2 has indicated any desire to withdraw their applications.[20]
The Authority has an obligation that extends beyond the parties in this case. Congress charged the Authority with "provid[ing] leadership in establishing policies and guidance" in matters that include "determin[ing] the appropriateness" of bargaining units.[21] As described more fully below, a bargaining unit must share a clear and identifiable community of interest under § 7112(a) of the Statute.[22] By issuing a decision that resolves the parties' dispute, the Authority clarifies for the labor-management community what does, or does not, constitute a clear and identifiable community of interest.
The dissent unnecessarily attempts to once again blur the line between adjudication and rulemaking. As we explained in DOL,[23] "[t]he three primary considerations in distinguishing adjudication from rulemaking are: (1) whether the government action applies to specific individuals or to unnamed and unspecified persons; (2) whether the promulgating agency considers general facts or adjudicates a particular set of disputed facts; and (3) whether the action determines policy issues or resolves specific disputes between particular parties."[24] Here, we decide only the dispute raised in the applications for review: whether a clear and identifiable community of interest exists. Our decision on that issue resolves the matter for the impacted employees, the Agency, Local 2, and the Petitioner – all of whom will benefit from knowing the bargaining-unit status of impacted employees.[25] As with any administrative determination by an adjudicatory body, our decision will provide precedential guidance to similarly situated parties.[26] That is adjudication, not rulemaking.
Consequently, we deny the Petitioner's request to withdraw.[27]
Analysis and Conclusion: No clear and identifiable community of interest exists for the proposed consolidated unit.
The Agency and Local 2 both argue that the RD failed to apply established law and committed a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter when the RD found that a community of interest existed for the proposed consolidated unit. We agree.
The Agency argues that the RD's reliance on the finding that the employees share the same overall Agency mission and the same chain of command, by ultimately reporting to the Agency Director, was faulty because the logic was circular.[28] If that were the case, "there would be no argument to make by any [f]ederal agency against consolidation by any union, and every consolidation case would end in consolidation, without any need for" investigation or analysis.[29] The Agency contends that the RD did not sufficiently consider the geographic proximity of two-thirds of the bargaining-unit employees and their distance from the other employees in the proposed unit or the varied work hours, shifts, and local missions.
In its application, Local 2 similarly argues that there is no clear and identifiable community of interest across the proposed consolidated bargaining units because the employees it represents perform distinct missions, fall under different chains of command, are geographically distinct, and have unique conditions of employment and little interchange with other units, compared to the proposed consolidated unit.[30] Local 2 represents 1,362 bargaining-unit employees who are limited to Fort Meade and the national capital region, and so "[t]hey do not share, and have no reason to share, the concerns faced by workers overseas or in other areas of the country."[31] Local 2 contends that the mission performed by the employees it currently represents differs "significantly" from the missions performed by other bargaining units and, so, the RD failed to apply established law in finding a community of interest.[32]
Section 7112(d) of the Statute permits consolidation of two or more bargaining units represented by the same exclusive representative "if the Authority considers the larger unit to be appropriate."[33] Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.[34]
The Authority has set out factors for assessing whether a clear identifiable community of interest exists, but has not specified the weight of individual factors or a particular number of factors necessary to establish an appropriate unit.[35]
The Authority examines such factors as geographic proximity, unique conditions of employment, distinct local concerns, degree of interchange between organizational components, and functional or operational separation.[36] In addition, the Authority considers factors such as whether the employees in the proposed unit are a part of the same organizational component of the agency; support the same mission; are subject to the same chain of command; have similar or related duties, job titles, and work assignments; and are subject to the same general working conditions.[37] Historically, the Authority has also considered factors such as common supervision,[38] the distribution and proportion of employees to be represented,[39] the locus and scope of the personnel and labor-relations authority and functions,[40] areas of consideration with regard to merit promotion or reduction-in-force actions,[41] delegation to local management,[42] and integration of mission and function.[43]
We find that the RD did not make sufficient findings of fact to support the determination that employees in the proposed, consolidated unit share a clear and identifiable community of interest. Consequently, the RD failed to apply established law. Under the RD's generic community-of-interest findings,[44] it is difficult to determine what clear and identifiable community of interest exists within the proposed unit that would not be shared by any group of bargaining-unit employees at any federal agency, government wide. In particular, the RD reached no findings at all as to the geographic dispersal of the employees or as to any differences in their duties or supervision. That every employee in the proposed consolidated unit performs duties that supported the Agency's ultimate mission can be said of employees at every federal agency. Because the RD failed to make sufficient findings to support the community-of-interest determination, we reverse the RD.[45]
Further, as noted previously, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts. But those stipulated facts also do not provide a sufficient record to support a community‑of‑interest finding. Because the parties' agreed-upon facts do not support finding a community of interest, we find it inappropriate to remand to give the parties a second chance to create a sufficient record. Instead, we dismiss the petition.[46]
We reverse the RD's decision and dismiss the petition.
Member DuBester, dissenting:
For the reasons expressed in my dissent in U.S. DOL,1 the majority's issuance of their decision in this case violates the Authority's Regulations,2 the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),3 and fundamental administrative law principles. Accordingly, I dissent.
The Union has informed the Authority that it no longer seeks to consolidate Agency bargaining units, by moving to withdraw its petition. The Agency and Local 2 do not oppose the motion. Consistent with its Regulations, the Authority should grant the motion and dismiss the petition.
When the Authority performs its statutory responsibility to "determine the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation,"4 it performs an adjudicative function. And, when it is engaged in adjudication, the Authority decides only matters placed before it by litigants. In accord with federal courts, the Authority has held that a dispute becomes moot when the parties no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.5 And it is well-settled that "the Authority does not resolve disputes that have become moot."6
Section 2429.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations implements this principle by explicitly prohibiting the Authority from issuing advisory opinions.7 To refuse to grant the Union's motion to withdraw its petition—and instead to address the petition's merits—is precluded by this Regulation. If there is no controversy before the Authority, then any decision in this matter is merely advisory.8
The majority attempts to justify its issuance of this advisory opinion by stating that the opinion "clarifies for the labor-management community what does, or does not, constitute a clear and identifiable community of interest."9 This rationale confuses one Authority process, adjudication, with another, rulemaking. These are two distinct functions. Adjudication is reserved for resolving live disputes, whereas rulemaking is the only process by which the Authority, on its own, may announce prospective policies and guidance.10
When an agency fails to comply with its own regulations, its action is unlawful and exposes the agency to court review.11 An agency's failure to follow its own regulations violates the APA's prohibition against agency action that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."12 The Authority should follow its own Regulation and "not issue [an] advisory opinion[]."13
In addition to the illegality of the majority's action, it is difficult to imagine a clearer waste of government resources than the majority's decision to resolve, sua sponte, an issue that no longer requires a resolution.14 The majority's exercise of jurisdiction here—tantamount to manufacturing a dispute where none exists—is in flagrant disregard of the Authority's statutory responsibilities.15 The majority's actions here speak more to an interest in issuing overreaching proclamations than engaging in the reasoned adjudication of real disputes.
The majority does not dispute the central point: this case is moot.16 Their decision is an unlawful advisory opinion. Accordingly, I dissent.
[1] The Petitioner also filed a second petition, in WA-RP-17-0010, seeking to determine whether, following a reorganization, it is the successor labor organization for all employees it currently represents at the Agency's Defense Enterprise Computing Centers. The Authority takes official notice of this petition, which remains pending before the Washington Regional Office. See 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5 ("The Authority may . . . take official notice of such matters as would be proper."); U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlburt Field, Fla., 66 FLRA 375, 378 (2011) (finding it appropriate to take official notice of other FLRA proceedings).
[2] 5 U.S.C. § 7112(d).
[3] Id. § 7112(a).
[4] As the Agency and Local 2 did not object to the RD's effectiveness and efficiency findings, we do not discuss them further.
[5] RD's Decision at 6.
[6] Id.
[7] Local 2 timely cured a deficiency in the filing of its application and we consider it. See Sept. 6 Order at 1-2; Local 2's Cure of Deficiencies (see Certificate of Service, certifying that application was served on designated representatives via certified mail on Sept. 12, 2017).
[8] The Petitioner argues that the Agency failed to present a number of its arguments to the RD. Sept. 12 Opp'n at 10-11, 14, 16, 18-19, 19 n.3. However, the Agency made these arguments in its position statement to the RD. See supra section II.A.; see also Agency's Position Statement at 4-7, 10-12. Additionally, the Agency requested that Local 2's position statement arguing against consolidation be included as part of the stipulation of facts signed by the Agency and the Petitioner. See June 8, 2017 email from Agency to the Washington Regional Office. As the Agency previously raised these arguments, we decline to dismiss them. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, E. Reg'l Office, N.Y.C., N.Y., 70 FLRA 291, 293 (2017).
[9] The Petitioner's opposition to Local 2's application is untimely and does not allege extraordinary circumstances permitting waiver of an expired time limit. Accordingly, we do not consider the Petitioner's opposition to Local 2's application. 5 C.F.R. §§ 2422.31(d), 2429.21(b), 2429.22, 2429.24; see also U.S. Dep't of VA, Wash., D.C., 67 FLRA 152, 153 (2013).
[10] Agency's Mot. at 1-2.
[11] Agency's Application at 8.
[12] 5 C.F.R. § 2422.31(d).
[13] Id. § 2429.22 (emphasis added).
[15] Cf. 5 C.F.R. § 2423.10(a)(1) (in the unfair-labor-practice context, the regional director must approve a party's request to withdraw a charge); id. § 2423.25(b) (even when parties agree to settle an unfair‑labor‑practice dispute, the complaint is not withdrawn until the regional director approves the settlement).
[16] 70 FLRA 452, 453-54 (2018).
[17] 5 C.F.R. § 2423.10(a)(1) (stating that an RD, on behalf of the General Counsel, may "[a]pprove a request to withdraw a charge").
[18] Id. § 2423.25(a)(2).
[19] RD's Decision at 1.
[20] Cf. AFGE, ICE, Nat'l Council 118, 70 FLRA 441, 441 (2018) (granting union's request to withdraw negotiability petition where agency effectively agreed with union's request, contingent on the Authority vacating the underlying decisions at issue). Member Abbott notes, as he did in DOL and U.S. Dep't of VA, Kan. City VA Med. Ctr., Kan. City, Kan. (VA), that the dissent's suggestion—that the Union should be permitted to withdraw this petition and then refile a new petition in sixty (60) days—does not "facilitate or encourage the amicable settlement of disputes" and has no "semblance of effectiveness or efficiency." 70 FLRA at 457; 70 FLRA 465, 467 n.21 (2018). Besides whipsawing the Agency out of the opportunity to have its application reviewed on the merits, the Union's actions amount to nothing more than a "manipulation of Title V." DOL, 70 FLRA at 457; VA, 70 FLRA at 467 n.21.
[21] 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a).
[22] Id. § 7112(a).
[23] 70 FLRA at 453.
[24] Id. (citing Gallo v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Ariz., 349 F.3d 1169, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1073 (2004)).
[25] See Yesler Terrace Cmty. Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442, 448 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that "adjudications . . . have an immediate effect on specific individuals (those involved in the dispute)").
[26] See, e.g., Goodman v. FCC, 182 F.3d 987, 994 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (stating that "the nature of adjudication is that similarly situated non-parties may be affected by the policy or precedent applied, or even merely announced in dicta" (citing NLRB v. Wyman‑Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 765-66 (1969)).
[27] See DOL, 70 FLRA at 454.
[28] Agency's Application at 4-5.
[29] Id. at 4.
[30] Local 2's Application at 3-7.
[31] Id. at 2, 5-6.
[33] U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, Dover Air Force Base, Del., 66 FLRA 916, 919 (2012) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7112(d)).
[36] U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt. & U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Bureau of Safety & Envtl. Enforcement, New Orleans, La., 67 FLRA 98, 99 (2012) (Ocean) (citing U.S. Dep't of the Navy, Fleet & Indus. Supply Ctr., Norfolk, Va., 52 FLRA 950, 961 (1997) (Navy)).
[37] Id. at 99-100 (citing Navy, 52 FLRA at 960-61).
[38] Dep't of HHS, 13 FLRA 39, 41-42 (1983) (HHS).
[39] Id. at 42; Dep't of Agric., Farmers Home Admin., 20 FLRA 216, 221 (1985) (Farmers); U.S. Dep't of HUD, 15 FLRA 497, 500 (1984) (HUD); U.S. Army Training & Doctrine Command, 11 FLRA 105, 109 (1983) (Army).
[40] Farmers, 20 FLRA at 221; HHS, 13 FLRA at 42.
[41] Army, 11 FLRA at 108.
[42] Farmers, 20 FLRA at 221; HUD, 15 FLRA at 500.
[43] See HUD, 15 FLRA at 500 (where "the record establishe[d] that, although there is a common mission shared by all employees of the [a]gency and similar functions are performed by employees throughout the field organization of HUD in pursuit of this mission, there is no integration of these functions between or among area offices or between area offices and regional offices," the Authority found no community of interest existed).
[44] Cf. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Ne. Park Serv., Ne. Region, 69 FLRA 89, 90-91, 95-96, 99‑115, 117 (2015) (regional director made very detailed factual findings on community‑of-interest factors).
[45] See, e.g., Ocean, 67 FLRA at 99-100; U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Nat'l Park Serv., Wash., D.C., 55 FLRA 311, 313, 315 (1999); Farmers, 20 FLRA at 221; HUD, 15 FLRA at 500; HHS, 13 FLRA at 42; Army, 11 FLRA at 108.
[46] As an alternative to dismissing the petition, the Agency requests a hearing. Agency's Application at 6. Because we dismiss the petition, we need not consider the Agency's alternative request.
1 70 FLRA 452, 458-59 (2018) (Dissenting Opinion of Member DuBester).
2 5 C.F.R. § 2429.10.
3 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
4 Id. § 7105(a)(2)(A).
5 SSA, Bos. Region (Region 1), Lowell Dist. Office, Lowell, Mass., 57 FLRA 264, 268 (2001); accord United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953).
6 NTEU, 67 FLRA 280, 281 (2014) (NTEU). The majority's decision is irreconcilable with its grant of a union's analogous dismissal request in AFGE, ICE, Nat'l Council 118, 70 FLRA 441, 441 (2018) (granting union's request to withdraw negotiability petition because the request mooted the case). In both instances, the matters became moot because the union moved to withdraw a petition seeking a ruling from the Authority. Contrary to the majority, Majority at 6, n.20, these matters became moot once those motions were filed, regardless of the Agency's, and here Local 2's, agreement.
7 NTEU, 67 FLRA at 281 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 2429.10 ("The Authority and the General Counsel will not issue advisory opinions.")).
8 Cf. NFFE, Local 1998, 48 FLRA 1074, 1075 (1993) (where union has withdrawn underlying grievance, arbitrator's award is moot and Authority decision on award's merits would be an advisory opinion). That the Agency and Local 2 have not withdrawn their applications for review, a significant consideration for the majority, Majority at 5, does not render the proceeding less moot. And, as noted, neither the Agency nor Local 2 oppose the Union's motion to withdraw its petition to consolidate, undoubtedly because retaining the status quo is precisely the result the Agency and Local 2 have sought throughout the proceeding.
9 Majority at 6.
10 See, e.g., Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 221 (1988) (Concurring Opinion of J. Scalia) ("[R]ulemaking [is] prospective, . . . adjudication [cannot] be purely prospective, since otherwise it would constitute rulemaking") (citing NLRB v. Wyman–Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 759 (1969), and SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 194 (1947)). The majority's claim, Majority at 5, that issuing a merits decision is not backdoor rulemaking is patently incorrect. The majority reasons that its decision "will benefit" the "employees, the Agency, Local 2" and the Union who will know "the bargaining‑unit status of the of impacted employees." Majority at 6. This is simply wrong. What the majority appears reluctant to acknowledge, and that undercuts the majority's entire theory on this point, is that the Union no longer seeks to consolidate Agency units. Accordingly, the advisory opinion the majority issues will not have any effect on these employees' bargaining-unit status, or on the rights and responsibilities of any of the parties.
11 Frisby v. U.S. Dep't of HUD, 755 F.2d 1052, 1055 (3d Cir. 1985) (validly promulgated agency regulations have the force of law).
12 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see also Aerial Banners, Inc. v. FAA, 547 F.3d 1257, 1260 (11th Cir. 2008) (agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to follow its own regulations and procedures); City of Sioux City v. Western Area Power Admin., 793 F.2d 181, 182 (8th Cir. 1986) (agency's failure to follow its own binding regulations is a reversible abuse of discretion); United States v. Heffner, 420 F.2d 809, 811-12 (4th Cir. 1969) (courts must overturn agency actions which do not scrupulously follow the regulations and procedures promulgated by the agency itself); Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 233-35 (1974) ("Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures.").
13 5 C.F.R. § 2429.10.
14 If the majority is concerned about the belatedness of the Union's motion to withdraw, then an appropriate response is not to expend additional resources to resolve a matter that is moot. The Authority already has mechanisms in place to deal with belated requests to withdraw. See 5 C.F.R. § 2422.14(b) (imposing waiting periods for filing new representation petitions on parties who belatedly withdraw petitions).
15 The majority's reliance on an analogy to unfair-labor-practice (ULP) proceedings, to support its claim that the Authority has "institutional interests" in resolving this case, Majority at 5, ignores fundamental distinctions among the Authority's various statutory responsibilities. The Authority enforces the ULP provisions of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a) & (b), and prosecutes those who violate them. The Authority has no analogous role in representation cases.
16 The underlying dispute is moot. However, faced with the majority's improper actions regarding the RD's decision, I feel compelled to note that, if I were to reach the merits, I would uphold that decision. The RD found that it was appropriate to consolidate eleven units into one larger unit, to be represented by the Union. The RD's decision is consistent with long‑standing Authority precedent, and the Authority's representation-case guidance on our website. See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 64 FLRA 399, 402 (2010); U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 55 FLRA 359, 362 (1999); see also the Authority's Representation Case Law Outline at 36.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE or the Union) filed the petition in WA-RP-17-0007 with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (Authority) on November 15, 2016, and amended the petition on December 12, 2016, under section 7111(b)(2) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute). The petition sought to determine whether certain existing Defense Information Systems Agency (Agency) bargaining units represented by the Union may be consolidated into a single bargaining unit.[1]
Based upon the parties' stipulation of facts, I hereby find and conclude as follows:
On February 9, 1996, in Case Number AT-CU-50063, the Authority certified AFGE as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All nonprofessional employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Megacenter (DMC) Warner Robins, GA.[2]
Excluded: All supervisors, management officials, professional employees, temporary employees holding temporary assignments not to exceed one year, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).[3]
On August 31, 2009, in Case Number BN-RP-09-0026, the Authority certified AFGE, Local 1156, as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All nonprofessional employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), including Interns, assigned to Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
Excluded: Management officials, supervisors, DISA employees assigned to the Systems Support Office (SSO) and the Defense Enterprise Computing Center (DECC) bargaining units, students assigned to the Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP) and the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP), and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7).[4]
On September 30, 1996, in Case Number WA-CU-60027, the Authority certified AFGE, Local 1156 as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All non-professional employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Joint Interoperability and Engineering Organization, Systems Support Office, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
Excluded: All management officials, supervisors, professional employees, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. §7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) and employees whose normal duty station is not located at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.[5]
On December 15, 1995, in Case Number BN-CU-50056, the Authority certified AFGE, Local 1156 as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All nonprofessional employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Megacenter (DMC) Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
Excluded: All supervisors, management officials, professional employees, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. §7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6), and (7).[6]
On December 23, 1998, in Case Number CH-RP-90007, the Authority certified AFGE, Local 1138 as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All General Schedule (GS) employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
Excluded: Professional employees, management officials, supervisors and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).[7]
On February 2, 2017, in Case Number DE-RP-17-0001, the Authority certified AFGE as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All nonprofessional employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Ogden, Utah and all nonprofessional employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Global Service Desk who are physically located in Ogden, Utah.
Excluded: All supervisors, management officials, professional employees, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).[8]
On February 14, 1996, in Case Number DE-CU-50065, the Authority certified AFGE, Local 2040 as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All nonprofessional employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Megacenter (DMC) Denver, Colorado.
Excluded: All supervisors, management officials, professional employees and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).[9]
On April 30, 2013, in Case Number DE-RP-13-0001, the Authority certified AFGE, Local 1662 as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All professional and non-professional General Schedule and Wage Grade employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Joint Interoperability Test Command located at Ft Huachuca, AZ.
Excluded: Management officials, supervisors, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6), and (7).[10]
On May 21, 2012, in Case Number WA-RP-12-0013, the Authority certified AFGE, Local 2 as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Included: All nonprofessional general schedule full-time and part-time employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, located at Ft. Meade, Maryland and in the National Capital Region, Washington, DC.
Excluded: All professional employees, management officials, supervisors, temporary employees, employees of the White House communications Agency and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).[11]
On October 13, 2016, in Case Number DA-RP-16-0009, the Authority certified AFGE, Local 916, as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
On February 8, 1996, in Case Number CH-CU-50052, the Authority certified AFGE as the exclusive representative of the following unit:
Army Lieutenant General Alan R. Lynn is the Agency Director.[14] The parties agree that the Agency's mission, created by Agency headquarters (Agency HQ) in Fort Meade, Maryland, is to provide, operate, and assure command and control, information-sharing capabilities, and a globally accessible enterprise information infrastructure in direct support to joint warfighters, national-level leaders, and other mission and coalition partners across the full spectrum of Agency operations.[15]These services are delivered through the information technology infrastructure that the Agency provides and operates at each of its locations.[16]
The Agency has operations in 18 States, in addition to Washington, DC, eight countries, and Guam and is organized into four centers: (1) the Development and Business Center, (2) the Resource Management Center, (3) the Fifth Estate Center, and (4) the Center for Operations.[17] The leadership at each center reports to Lieutenant General Lynn.[18] All four centers have a unique sub-mission, and each sub-mission supports the Agency's overall mission.[19] Agency HQ has discretion in distributing work to each of the centers discussed above.[20] Not all duties are performed at each location, but each location, no matter where geographically located, supports the Agency's overall mission.[21]
Agency HQ contains a Human Resources Office (HRO) that implements Agency-wide human resources policies and internal guidelines that all Agency locations must comply with.[22] Each center has discretion in implementing local guidance to supplement the headquarters-issued policy and internal guidelines.[23] Local guidance cannot interfere with the headquarters-issued policy and/or guidelines.[24] The HRO contains the Agency's only Employee and Labor Relations Office (ELRO), which services the entire Agency.[25] To effectuate its labor relations program, the Agency employs Human Resources Field Advisors.[26] The Human Resources Field Advisors provide assistance with personnel and labor relations matters, including contract negotiations, grievance resolution, and any other personnel-related issues.[27] Each of the Human Resources Field Advisors is stationed at different Agency locations throughout the country, and each supports a specific command center or other Agency component.[28] All Human Resources Field Advisors report to the Chief of the ELRO, who is stationed at Agency HQ.[29] The Chief of the ELRO reports to the Chief of the Civilian Personnel Division, who is also located at Agency HQ.[30]
The Agency and certain AFGE Local units have existing Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).[31] Agency HQ and AFGE, Local 2 executed a CBA in 1989.[32] The Agency and its Fort Huachuca, Arizona location executed a CBA with AFGE, Local 1662 on April 14, 2000.[33] One of the Agency's Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania units executed a CBA with AFGE, Local 1156 in March or April 2011.[34] While separate agencies, the Defense Logistics Agency executed a CBA on November 12, 1990, that covers employees of the Agency's Columbus, Ohio location, and the Air Force Logistics Command executed a CBA on October 22, 1986, that covers employees of the Agency's Ogden, Utah and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma locations.[35] These individuals, however, are Agency employees.[36] Other than the CBAs referenced herein, the relevant Agency employees are covered by no other CBAs.[37]
In addition to AFGE, the following labor organizations represent Agency employees at the corresponding locations but are not included in this petition: National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 405, Saint Louis, Missouri and Local 1442, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania; the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 121, Aiea, Hawaii; and the Service Employees International Union, Local 556, Aiea, Hawaii.[38]
Analysis and Conclusions
Section 7112(d) of the Statute allows consolidation of two or more bargaining units represented by the same exclusive representative "if the Authority considers the larger unit to be appropriate." U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 55 FLRA 359, 361 (1999)(Air Force Materiel Command). The reference in Section 7112(d) of an "appropriate" unit incorporates the appropriate unit elements established in Section 7112(a) of the Statute. Id. A unit may be determined to be appropriate if it will: "(1) ensure a clear and identifiable community of interest among the employees in the unit; (2) promote effective dealings with the agency involved; and (3) promote efficiency of the operations of the agency involved." U.S. Dep't of Commerce U.S. Census Bureau, 64 FLRA 399, 402 (2010)(Department of Commerce)(citing U.S. Dep't of the Navy Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, 52 FLRA 950, 959 (1997))(Department of the Navy).
Clear and Identifiable Community of Interest
When determining whether employees share a clear and identifiable community of interest, the Authority will examine a host of factors. Department of Commerce, 64 FLRA at 402 (citing Department of the Navy, 52 FLRA at 961). Among the factors are: geographic proximity; unique conditions of employment; whether the employees are a part of the same organizational component of the Agency; whether the employees support the same mission; whether the employees have similar or related job duties, titles, and assignments; and whether the employees are governed by the same personnel office. Id.
Here, the employees involved share a clear and identifiable community of interest. Each Agency location impacted by this petition, no matter where geographically located, is working in support of the same mission, and is a part of the same chain of command, ultimately reporting to Lieutenant General Lynn. To support the mission, one centralized location, Agency HQ, distributes the work to be performed by each location. While the work/duties performed may differ slightly from location to location, the completion of that work helps achieve an identical end goal. See Department of Commerce, 64 FLRA at 402 (noting that employees can perform separate duties and still share a clear and identifiable community of interest).
Additionally, the employees at issue are collectively serviced by both the Agency's HRO and ELRO. The HRO implements Agency-wide human resources policy and internal guidelines that each location must comply with. While different locations have different Human Resources Field Advisors who provide assistance with labor relations matters, each of those Human Resources Field Advisors is a part of the ELRO and report back to the ELRO Chief.
Because the subject employees have in common a number of the determinative factors, I find that the employees share a clear and identifiable community of interest.
Effective Dealings and Efficiency of Agency Operations
In determining whether consolidation would promote effective dealings and efficiency of Agency operations, the Authority examines a number of factors, none of which is by itself dispositive. Air Force Materiel Command, 55 FLRA at 364 (citing Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Dallas, Texas, 5 FLRA 657, 661-662 (1981)). The factors include: whether personnel and labor relations discretion is centralized and broad operating polices exist at a national level; whether consolidation will reduce unit fragmentation, thereby "promoting a more effective, comprehensive bargaining unit structure to effectuate the purposes of the Statute." Id. The Authority further examines whether the unit would "adequately reflect the agency's organizational structure or would require creating a new agency structure." Air Force Materiel Command, 55 FLRA at 364 (citing Dep't of Defense, National Guard Bureau, 13 FLRA 232, 237 (1983)).
Here, consolidating the employees would promote effective dealings with the Agency and efficiency of the Agency's operations. As noted above, the Agency's Human Resources Office, located at Agency HQ, issues Agency-wide human resources policy and internal guidelines that all Agency employees are subject to. Additionally, the HRO and ELRO service all of the impacted employees from Agency HQ. Thus, both the policy-making function and labor-management function that the at-issue employees are subject to are at a central location, clearly making for efficient operations.
Moreover, consolidating the 11 units into one larger unit will reduce unit fragmentation, centralizing Agency-Union interaction as to those 11 units, thereby "promoting a more effective, comprehensive bargaining unit structure." See Air Force Materiel Command, 55 FLRA at 364. As to the Agency's operating structure, there is no indication in the Stipulation of Facts, or otherwise, that a consolidation would require creating a new Agency structure. Indeed, Agency operations will continue as usual, consolidation or not.
Finally, while there are other AFGE units that are not included in this petition, the Authority has consistently held that a consolidation petition does not need to include all possible bargaining units. Id. As to the non-AFGE bargaining units and their employees, a consolidation will have no bearing on the labor-management relationship between those units and the Agency. Accordingly, I find that consolidating the 11 units would promote effective dealings and efficiency of the Agency's operations.
Because combining the 11 units would make an appropriate unit, I find that the certifications issued in Case Numbers AT-CU-50063; BN-RP-09-0026; WA-CU-60027; BN-CU-50056; CH-RP-90007; DE-RP-17-0001; DE-CU-50065; DE-RP-13-0001; WA-RP-12-0013; DA-RP-16-0009; CH-CU-50052 may be consolidated as follows:
Included: All nonprofessional employees of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Megacenter (DMC) Warner Robins, GA.
Excluded: All supervisors, management officials, professional employees, temporary employees holding temporary assignments not to exceed one year, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
Excluded: Management officials, supervisors, DISA employees assigned to the Systems Support Office (SSO) and the Defense Enterprise Computing Center (DECC) bargaining units, students assigned to the Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP) and the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP), and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7).
Excluded: All management officials, supervisors, professional employees, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. §7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) and employees whose normal duty station is not located at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
Excluded: All supervisors, management officials, professional employees, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. §7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6), and (7).
Excluded: Professional employees, management officials, supervisors and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
Excluded: All supervisors, management officials, professional employees, and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
Excluded: All supervisors, management officials, professional employees and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
Excluded: Management officials, supervisors, and employees described in 5 U.S.C.7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6), and (7).
Excluded: All professional employees, management officials, supervisors, temporary employees, employees of the White House communications Agency and employees described in 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certifications granted to AFGE; AFGE, Local 1156; AFGE, Local 1138; AFGE, Local 2040; AFGE, Local 1662; AFGE, Local 2; and AFGE, Local 916, identified above, be consolidated into a single unit represented by AFGE.
Right to Seek Review
Under Section 7105(f) of the Statute and Section 2422.31(a) of the Authority's Regulations, a party may file an application for review with the Authority within sixty (60) days of this Decision. The application for review must be filed with the Authority by August 28, 2017, and addressed to the Chief, Office of Case Intake and Publication, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Docket Room, Suite 201, 1400 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20424–0001. The parties are encouraged to file an application for review electronically through the Authority's website, www.flra.gov.
______________________________________________Jessica S. Bartlett
Regional Director, Washington Region
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Dated: June 29, 2017
[1] AFGE Locals subject to the petition were afforded the opportunity to submit a statement of interest. AFGE, Local 2 submitted a statement of interest. No other AFGE Locals impacted by the petition submitted a statement of interest.
[2] The Agency no longer has locations referred to as Defense Megacenters. However, the Agency continues to recognize employees covered by bargaining unit descriptions that reference Defense Megacenters.
[3] Stips. Page 1, ¶ 5.
[8] Stips. Pages 2-3, ¶ 10.
[9] Stips. Page 3, ¶ 11.
[10] Stips. Page 3, ¶ 12.
[13] Stips. Pages 3-4, ¶ 15.
[15] Stips. Pages 4-5, ¶ 17, 25.
[22] Stips. Page 5, ¶ 25, 28.
[31] Stips. Pages 5-6, ¶ 29-33.
[36] Stips. Pages 2-4, ¶ 10, 14, 15.
1400 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20424 202-218-7770
Footer Menu Col1
Promo Menu Block
Footer Secondary Menu
No FEAR Act & EEO

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: How to get the windowbuilder zip file offline Installation? I want to know what are the eclipse version will support the windowbuilder and its available online for online installation?

A: At present, the chosen answer has become OBE (overcome by events -- obsolete).
In order to install WindowBuilder offline, you must download one of the code repositories listed below. (discussion here)

*

*For Eclipse Neon, Oxygen, Photon, 2018 & 2019 (versions 4.6 to 4.11) download an upgraded WB repository.

On the left side of the page, download "repository.zip" (click 'Show Directory Contents' if you don't see that.  It should show up.)
Unzip the download.
In Eclipse, select "Install New Software" (under the Help menu).
Click "Add.." to choose the new repository.
Click "Local...", "Browse For Folder" and select the unzipped "repository" folder, then click "OK".
Click the other "OK" (or "Add"), too.
Check the box next to "WindowBuilder".  (It should be in the large, open pane of the "Install" window.).  Then click "Next>" and all other affirmative options until done.

A: Eclipse Mars and Eclipse Neon supports windowbuilder (I only worked with them, but I suppose every version of Eclipse supports windowbuilder). If you download Eclipse Mars v2, you will have windowbuilder by default. For Eclipse Neon, you must download windowbuilder.
Here is the link where you can find windowbuilder. Just follow the instructions
http://www.eclipse.org/windowbuilder/download.php

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The University of Rhode Island women's soccer team knocked off Wagner University at the Kingston Soccer Complex on Friday night, 3-2.
The Rams followed up their comeback win against the Seahawks with a 3-0 home shutout of the University of Maine on Sunday afternoon.
With the victories, Rhode Island raised their record to 8-1-1 and exceeded their victory total of six from the 2013 season.
Seahawks goalkeeper Katie Marcy fouled sophomore forward Donika Murray in the box with less than two minutes remaining in regulation and the score tied at 2, leading to a penalty shot for the Rams. Sophomore midfielder Nicole Brennan sent her shot up the middle and into the back of the net to seal the win.
Facing an early 2-0 deficit with just more than 10 minutes until halftime, Rhode Island evened the score when Brennan and freshman Amanda Nardella netted back-to-back goals. Brennan now leads the Rams in scoring with 12 points.
Murray has had a big impact on the Rams this season, registering seven points on two goals and three assists. Murray made her presence felt on offense for the Rams, taking five shots during the victory over the Seahawks. She leads the team in shots with 22 on the season.
Rhode Island looked to carry their success into Sunday's game against Maine, who had lost five of their last seven games coming into Kingston.
Goalkeeper Reilly Lindsey was forced to make two consecutive saves in the 14th minute in order to keep Maine off of the board early. The Rams' first goal came 20 minutes later when Simone Hansen connected on a Nardella pass for her second goal on the season. Nardella was taken down in the box earning Rhode Island a penalty kick three minutes later, which was taken and finished by Nicole Brennan for her fourth goal on the season.
Rhode Island held the offensive momentum in the first half, outshooting the Black Bears 8-4 and taking eight corner kicks.
"We finished the first half strong after coming out reserved when we could have had a lot more chances go our way," Needham said. "We did what was necessary in order to put a couple goals in the back of the net going into the half".
Samantha Leyh gave the Rams an insurance goal in the 49th minute when she headed in a Nicole Brennan corner kick for her fourth score of the season.
Brennan's eight points over the weekend secured her the Corvais Eastern Collegiate Athletic Conference Offensive Player of the Week Award. She was also named GoRhody.com Female Athlete of the Week and Atlantic 10 Co-Player of the Week for her efforts.
Lindsey only had to make one save during the second half, and totaled four for the game. Maine goalkeeper Claudia Dube-Trempe had to make eight saves in all on the afternoon with five of them coming in the second half.
Rhode Island will host St. Joseph's University on Friday, Oct. 3, at 7 p.m. at the Kingston Soccer Complex for their Atlantic 10 Conference opener.


text:
37.88.906 MENTAL HEALTH CENTER SERVICES FOR ADULTS, COVERED SERVICES
History: 53-2-201, 53-6-113, MCA; IMP, 53-2-201, 53-6-101, 53-6-111, 53-6-113, MCA; NEW, 1999 MAR p. 1301, Eff. 7/1/99; TRANS, from SRS, 2000 MAR p. 195; AMD, 2001 MAR p. 27, Eff. 1/12/01; AMD, 2002 MAR p. 2225, Eff. 8/16/02; AMD, 2004 MAR p. 482, Eff. 2/27/04; AMD, 2009 MAR p. 1489, Eff. 8/28/09; REP, 2018 MAR p. 725, Eff. 5/1/18.


Welcome to the newsletter for our Friends and Family. We will publish every two months so you can follow along with the expedition planning and progress. If you are having trouble reading the newsletter, just click on it to get a better quality version.
If you would like to receive these newsletters automatically via email, you can subscribe to our mailing list.


Bitcoin is acceptable in the eyes of Allah, a mosque has declared, as it becomes the first in the UK to accept cryptocurrency donations.
Religious advisers at the Masjid Ramadan in Dalston, east London, have said the currency is halal if it is "transacted in a lawful manner".
There has been significant debate about cryptocurrency in the Muslim world, with figures including the Mufti of Egypt suggesting it is haram, or forbidden, because it is used by some for illegal activity.
But the mosque has declared that Muslims can use it for their Ramadan donation, known as zakat.


text:
Home » Versatility and efficiency drive health care lighting
Versatility and efficiency drive health care lighting
Manufacturers expand LED offerings for hospital applications
Neal Lorenzi
Image courtesy of Eaton Corp.
Hospital lighting fixtures and equipment must enhance the patient experience and the staff's ability to provide a high level of care. Moreover, they must address the needs of specialized care areas throughout the hospital to support a diverse range of activities 24 hours a day.
Hospitals and clinics have a special need for low-flicker or flicker-free fixtures to protect patients and visitors who have photo-sensitive epilepsy/seizure disorders, especially in stairwells and other fall-risk areas. Many areas of hospitals and clinics also are sensitive to noise and disruption, so it's important to choose fixtures that install quickly and easily, according to Jeff Hungarter, director of indoor lighting at Cree Lighting, Durham, N.C.
Engineering lighting products in health care environments have compliance considerations as well, according to Les Kaminski, vice president of operations and product management at Waldmann Lighting, Wheeling, Ill. "Our Derungs lighting products maintain all medical certifications necessary for safe use in a hospital," he says. "We also source materials that are durable enough to hold up to the rigorous cleaning and disinfecting procedures required."
The LED revolution
The good news for health care facilities is that manufacturers have developed a wide range of innovations.
For instance, light-emitting diode (LED) fixtures are used throughout hospitals today. Lumen requirements have increased, and the life of high-quality LEDs has been extended up to 80,000 hours. "Exam lighting fixture footprints are becoming smaller and more ergonomic, while hospital facility lighting is being controlled by systems that provide energy efficiency metrics," Kaminski says.
Originally, the performance of LED fixtures versus fluorescent and high-intensity discharge (HID) was not too far apart in terms of efficacy. However, pricing, which was an initial impediment, has continued to drop, as has the robustness and efficacy of LEDs, according to Josh Linenberger, vice president at Atrius Applied Solution Sales, Acuity Brands Inc., Atlanta.
"The lower price points and increased efficacy have resulted in a considerable difference from the prior generation of products; there is a better return on investment, which is making a stronger case for the conversion to LED," Linenberger says. "The improved robustness of LEDs and drivers has opened that segment of the market for good quality fixtures. Acuity Brands is seeing more growth in that segment."
LED fixtures have become the design standard for new lighting in health care projects, owing to the form, function and budget of new LED products, according to Sally Lee, business development manager at Ledvance GmbH, Wilmington, Mass., maker of Sylvania general lighting in the United States and Canada. "There really hasn't been any development that isn't LED, including medical equipment design. The lighting design process of 'starting with the light source' hasn't really changed, despite the source being integrated into the fixture."
Health care lighting design still requires a careful process of lighting product specification that meets the owner's project requirements, including budget and maintenance. "One challenge of fully integrating LED fixtures into health care facilities is the question of lighting maintenance, because it's no longer a matter of simply changing out lightbulbs, especially if rooms must be decommissioned in order to prevent exposing patients to pollutants," Lee adds.
Most LED fixtures available today have been completely redesigned to accommodate the unique characteristics of the light source. These new fixtures deliver efficient lighting with improved control, enabling them to project light farther from the light source, according to Nishad Chikhliker, lighting segment and commercialization marketing manager at Connected Buildings – Eaton, Peachtree City, Ga. "LED provides excellent color rendering and a consistent color of white light throughout the facility, along with energy efficiency and the ability to meet building codes and green building initiatives," he says.
LED fixtures offer more light with less energy, little heat production, controllability and a fraction of traditional lighting maintenance requirements. "As the technology has advanced, many people feel more comfortable with LED because the light appears brighter, has better color and produces a more uniform illumination than fluorescent products," Chikhliker adds.
Converting to LED is an increasingly easy and viable way to help health care facilities, both big and small, reduce energy, maintenance and operational costs. "The important thing to consider is that lighting also directly effects how people feel and function," says Nitin Tyagi, health care and industry product manager at Signify, Somerset, N.J. "Therefore, the quality of light should be evaluated not just in terms of how much energy it saves, but how it can better support the daily activities of patients, their families and hospital staff."
Sylvania LED troffer retrofit kits offer easy conversion from fluorescent to LED fixtures, and up to 50 percent in energy savings. The kits feature safe, easy installation in less than four minutes, and they bypass the existing ballast to eliminate incompatibility issues. "This is ideal for hospitals because you don't need to break the ceiling to perform the lighting upgrade, therefore reducing the possibility of dust and other materials falling into the space," Lee explains.
Other innovations
Among many other LED innovations recently introduced to the health care market, the MediMode Behavioral lighting fixture from Hubbell Healthcare Solutions, Greenville, S.C., provides primary lighting requirements for the patient environment while addressing the safety and security concerns of behavioral health spaces, according to Michael McCullough, director of public relations. The construction is designed to reduce risk of ligature self-harm, hiding of contraband and general damage to the fixture.
Available in a multifunction model (DS option) that provides ambient/reading and exam illumination and in an ambient model (SS option), the MediMode Behavioral features a one-piece, cold rolled steel (CRS) door frame with 0.250-inch clear polycarbonate lens and tamper-resistant hardware. Optical assembly and electrical components are accessible from below the ceiling.
Signify recently introduced a RelaxView Healthcare Lighting System, which features LED graphic panels that can be mounted on the ceiling or wall as a distraction for patients during long procedures while providing health care professionals with general ambient lighting to aid in the performance of their tasks. Wall dimmers and power distribution modules provide additional control of the environment for the task at hand.
Signify also has unveiled the SurgiCare LED fixture, which is completely sealed for maximum protection in the surgical suite. "The housing has no openings above the ceiling, and the luminaire is sealed to the structure with gaskets. Safety cables hold the door securely to the housing for ease of maintenance," Tyagi explains.
Waldmann has introduced recessed over-bed lights, Stellar and Stellar Duo, for patient room ceilings in the North American market. The fixtures are space-saving and provide an alternative design option from the company's other headwall bed light offerings, according to Kaminski. The Stellar Duo Light offers three lighting functions: ambient, exam and reading. Lenses and reflectors offer clean, glare-free light to help caregivers perform their tasks.
Waldmann's Derungs brand has unveiled the Triango-100 procedure light, which features 100,000 lux light output at 1 meter with shadow-free, uniform illumination, an adjustable light field from 6 to 11 inches and an ergonomic, contoured light head design. It has four dimming levels and is available with adjustable color temperatures.
Cree Lighting has introduced The Cadiant Experience, an LED lighting solution that delivers both the architectural impact and the sensory experience of a true skylight, according to Hungarter. It features dimensional LED panels that simulate the depth of field, shifting sun positions, clouds and natural hues of an actual sky. "Wherever natural light is desired but lacking, this lighting solution brings the outdoors inside by mirroring the natural arc of the sun as it crosses the sky and recreating local weather conditions — from bright, sunny mornings to overcast, cloudy afternoons," he says.
The Cadiant Experience can serve as the primary light source in patient rooms, exam rooms and smaller spaces, and will work in concert with other types of fixtures in larger areas such as nurse stations, waiting areas, lobbies and break rooms. "The Cadiant Experience is code-compliant and employs standalone Cree SmartCast Technology, which does not require IT integration or approval. An intuitive, wall-mounted touchscreen gives users fingertip control over multiple installations," Hungarter adds.
Eaton has introduced VividTune color tunable solutions, which allow health care facilities to achieve the right color temperature and intensity by balancing circadian rhythms. "With tunable solutions, users can choose from a wide range of correlated color temperature (CCT) settings as the time of day or need of the hour changes. They can maintain a fixed color temperature and adjust it up and down without affecting the light output intensity," Chikhliker explains.
Selecting the correct CCT is important for diagnosis, he adds. In patient rooms or other diagnostic areas, light fixtures must be able to render the true color of objects, materials and skin tones. This is important, as physicians evaluate the color of a patient's skin, eyes and organs to diagnose conditions and track recovery.
WAC Lighting, Port Washington, N.Y., recently enhanced its line of architectural fixtures with an antimicrobial powder-coat finish that restrains the growth of pathogens on surfaces. This feature is offered in the company's LED step lights, LED under-cabinet bar lights and LED puck lights. "Step lights often are used as nightlights in patient rooms with our amber LED option. We also have retrofitted step lights in children's hospitals where they are used for wayfinding as our LED step lights are not hot to the touch," says Shelley Wald, president.
Specifiers also are placing decorative pendants and sconces from both WAC Lighting and its Modern Forms unit in the lobbies and waiting rooms of health care facilities, as well as in patient rooms.
"We offer many high-design looks that designers need to achieve the upscale, contemporary hospitality feel that is desired in today's patient-centric facilities," Wald says. "We also offer emergency battery backup wall sconces and recessed lights for designers who need to meet power outage requirements without adding overhead troffers, which are detrimental to the aesthetics of a space."
Optimizing for people
As the commercial LED lighting industry matures, the emphasis on product performance is beginning to shift from optimizing building functions to optimizing for people, according to Tom Hinds, director of intelligent lighting at Cree Lighting.
"The [International WELL Building Institute's] WELL Building Standard is the new LEED, and whether facility professionals are yet pursuing this kind of health-centric building certification or not, they must see the trend," Hinds says. The WELL Building Standard is a performance-focused system for measuring, certifying and monitoring features of the built environment that impact health.
"Energy efficiency, low maintenance and sustainability are still important, but they are just table stakes now," Hinds says. "Building managers want better light quality — light that can be tuned to particular tasks, personal preferences and the time of day as well as intelligent [features] that offer non-visual benefits such as circadian activation."
Neal Lorenzi is a freelance writer and regular contributor based in Mundelein, Ill.
Metalux Cruze recessed troffer features the VividTune white tuning capabilities, and combines contemporary styling and optimal illumination design with a linear LED platform for enhanced energy savings, comfort and aesthetics. Eaton Corp.
FAMILIAR ATMOSPHERE
The Cadiant Experience is an LED lighting solution that delivers both the architectural impact and the sensory experience of a true skylight. Cree Inc.
SAFE SETTING
MediMode Behavioral lighting fixtures are designed to reduce risk of ligature self-harm, hiding of contraband and general damage to the luminaire. Hubbell Healthcare Solutions
MADE WITH PURPOSE
The SurgiCare LED fixture is completely sealed for maximum protection in the surgical suite. Signify
The Derungs Triango procedure light features four dimming levels and is available with adjustable color temperatures. Waldmann Lighting
LED luminaires can be enabled with advanced solutions such as Atrius, an "internet of things" application that enables digital capabilities. Acuity Brands Inc.
PROPERLY LIT
LED step and wall lights illuminate stairs, walls and walkways with little or no glare. WAC Lighting
Troffer retrofit kits offer easy conversion from fluorescent to LED fixtures and up to 50 percent in energy savings. Ledvance GmbH
ProductsLighting
BIM and other technologies drive building efficiencies
New tools help facilities professionals to improve performance
Tunable white light for health care spaces
New illumination technologies add to patient comfort and well-being
Flexible design adds versatility to behavioral health facility
Pine Rest Christian Mental Health Services adds beds, renovates admissions area


text:
https://apnews.com/article/arizona-phoenix-voting-rights-elections-us-supreme-court-533b71daa7001be6b5084de65983e4e7
High court sets hearing for Arizona 'ballot harvesting' law
FILE - This Nov. 5, 2020 file photo, shows the Supreme Court in Washington.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
PHOENIX (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear arguments in March on an Arizona law that prohibits anyone but a family member, household member or caregiver from returning another person's early election ballot.
A federal appeals court in January 2020 struck down Arizona's ban on so-called "ballot harvesting," ruling that it violated the Voting Rights Act, disproportionately affects Black, Latino and Indigenous voters and was enacted with discriminatory intent, The Arizona Republic reported Thursday.
The appeals court also found that the state's policy of discarding ballots if a voter went to the wrong precinct violates the law.
The case began after Republicans in Arizona passed the law making it a felony to return someone else's ballot to election officials in most cases and Democrats sued, arguing the practice is important for voters who do not have transportation, a nearby polling place or timely mail service.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, argued that the ban is a basic means of curbing the potential of fraud or tampering during an election.
The law remained in effect through the presidential election in November. The appeals court held its decision while the Supreme Court was asked to take the case.


text:
Hammerson
Last name: Hammerson
This interesting and unusual surname is of early medieval English origin, and is a patronymic form of Hammer, i.e., "son of Hammer", which has two possible sources. Firstly, it may be a metonymic occupational name for a maker or user of hammers, for example one who worked in a forge, from the Middle High German "hamer", hammer, from the Old High German "hamar", stone; hence, "hammer made of stone". Job-descriptive surnames originally denoted the actual occupation of the namebearer, and later became hereditary. Secondly, it was given as a nickname to a forceful person, from the same derivation as above. The creation of surnames from nicknames was a common practice in the Middle Ages, and many modern-day surnames derive from medieval nicknames referring to personal characteristics. John le Hammer is noted in the 1332 Pipe Rolls of Sussex, but the patronymic form is not listed until much later on (see below). In the modern idiom the surname can be found as Hamerson and Hammerson. On June 29th 1634, William, son of William and Ann Hamerson, was christened at St. Bride's, Fleet Street, London, and Mary and James, the twin children of James and Elizabeth Hammerson, were christened at St. Dunstan's, Stepney, London. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of William Hammerson, which was dated April 8th 1599, witness at the christening of his daughter, Alice, at Frampton, Lincolnshire, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1, known as "Good Queen Bess", 1558 - 1603. Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling.
Surname scroll for: Hammerson


The Shenandoah Valley had been a thorn in the side of the Federal Government since the beginning of the Civil War. Stretching 165 miles from Winchester to Lexington the various mountain chains and vast open spaces of the valley defied every Union army sent to subdue the region.
In 1862 Stonewall Jackson's troops famously ran rings around the Union army in the valley. Knowing the region well Jackson used the myriad of gaps in the mountains to secretly move his troops throughout the valley. So adept and quick at this mobile warfare that Stonewall's troops were nicknamed, "Jackson's Foot Cavalry".
In 1864 the Shenandoah Valley with its countless farms, cattle and horse flesh continued to serve the Confederacy as a vast supply center. To protect this resource Robert E Lee sent veteran commander Jubal Early with reinforcements to the valley in an attempt to repeat Jackson's successes and retain this vast granary for the Confederacy.
US Grant determined to finally shut down operations in the Shenandoah Valley names Phil Sheridan, a newly arrived commander from the west, to fulfill this assignment. Unlike the Union valley campaigns of the past Grant would pick his most experienced troops to accompany Sheridan to the Shenandoah Valley in 1864.
Correspondingly facing Sheridan would be some of the Confederacy's toughest fighters. Stonewall's old Foot Cavalry were present as well as other veteran units that had served in the valley earlier in the war.
These two armies would face each other and fight all cross the Shenandoah Valley in 1864. The fighting would stretch from Winchester to Harrisonburg with the main battles happening in the north of the valley outside of Winchester, at Fisher's Hill and Cedar Creek. These three battles would culminate as Union victories and finally seal the fate of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley for the rest of the Civil War.
I travelled to this region of Virginia in October 2014 to explore the remains of the 1864 battlefields and to attend a reenactment at the 18th century Belle Grove Plantation to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The Belle Grove Plantation and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are part of a public/private partnership associated with the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Surrounded by mountains and working farms the rolling cultivated terrain at Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are a perfectly preserved early American landscape.
Over the commemorative weekend thousands of reenactors set up their regimental camps in designated areas at Belle Grove just as they had in 1864. Staged exactly 150 years to the day the reenactment would take place on the same rolling fields, the same hallowed ground as the decisive battle which occurred here on October 19th 1864.
To enhance the sesquicentennial commemoration Union reenactors held an election rally in camp to support Abraham Lincoln's reelection campaign of 1864. Reenactors moved about the camp by torchlight voicing their support for Lincoln and some for his opponent, former army commander George B. McClellen. The following morning the living historians voted dropping their ballots in a box lorded over by a local sutler.
Thousands of reenactors lined the slopes of the Cedar Creek Battlefield creating dramatic views of flag bearing regiments marching along the crests of the battlegrounds' rolling hills. Union reenactors came together and formed a "Grand Review" for the early arriving spectators. Arraying themselves across the fields of Cedar Creek in white gloves, Federal cavalry troops, artillery teams and infantry regiments spread out in columns for review by the commander – in this case Brig. Gen. Darrell N. Markijohn. The Union and Confederate troops in 2014 would reenact the battles of Tom's Brook, 3rd Winchester and Cedar Creek commemorating the struggle in 1864 for control of the Shenandoah Valley.
Amazingly the Shenandoah Valley today continues to be the "bread basket" it was in the 19th century. The valleys are still filled with produce, cattle and dairy farms and the small towns that dot the Valley Pike continue to retain their Civil War era look and feel.
Drive this old byway from Winchester to Lexington and you are passing through some of the most beautiful countryside in America.
In 1864 the fighting in the Shenandoah Valley would be unlike the combat soldiers were experiencing outside of Petersburg, Virginia where siege warfare dictated the use of entrenchments and earthworks. The valley's open spaces and cultivated farm lands would lend itself to a more mobile warfare. The battles of 3rd Winchester and Cedar Creek would be bloody "stand-up" fights accompanied by thundering cavalry charges.
Preparing for the trip I kept a close eye on the weather. The sensitivities of the pinhole camera dictates the need for a least a little light and the forecast somewhat ominously called for mostly cloudy conditions for my week-long stay. What I found out is when they say "mostly cloudy" in the Shenandoah Valley, they mean, mostly stunning…..
The Shenandoah Valley is bisected by an old road first laid out in the 18th century by a young American engineer named George Washington. The old Valley Pike, now route 11, still runs the length of the Shenandoah Valley and takes you through one small 19th century town after the next. Each one of these towns would be touched by the war as possession of the Valley Pike would become the key to the 1864 campaign.
After out-manuvoring and defeating two larger Union armies in the Shenandoah Valley in the spring of 1864 General Jubal Early, at the urging of Robert E. Lee, used the valley as a spring-board in the Confederacy's last invasion of the north. On July 9th 1864 Early's troops attacked and drove off Union forces at the Battle of Monocacy in Frederick County, Maryland and continued their march north to the outskirts of Washington threatening the nation's capitol. All of these events led US Grant to detach a portion of his army from Petersburg to Washington to respond to the threat.
Confederate troops led by Jubal Early make a half-hearted attack on Fort Stevens near the Washington City limits before wisely marching his army back to the safety of the Shenandoah Valley.
In August of 1864, with frustration mounting in the north, General Phil Sheridan takes command of the Army of the Shenandoah. Supported by a force of 35,000 men Sheridan's mission is to finally bring an end to Confederate operations in the Shenandoah Valley.
Grant's orders for Sheridan sound much like his orders to Gen. Meade when the Overland Campaign began back in May of 1864. Sheridan is ordered to follow the rebel army "where ever the enemy goes you will go also" and to destroy the region's ability to sustain the Confederates.
Winchester Virginia has the distinction of being the most fought over town in the American Civil War. Twenty seven separate battles and skirmishes happened for control of the Valley's northern most town and in 1864 Phil Sheridan's Army of the Shenandoah will finally wrestle it from the Confederates for good.
On September 19th 1864 the two armies confronted each other north of the town in what would be the 3rd Battle of Winchester.
The Union Army of the Shenandoah would attack the Confederates along Red Bud Run, a meandering swampy creek that still parallels the battlefield today.
Two future presidents of the United States would fight here at Winchester in 1864 with Rutherford B. Hayes being wounded while leading his men across Red Bud Run during the battle. Serving on Hayes' staff a young Lt. William McKinley who would also distinguish himself in the Valley Campaign of 1864.
Union forces at 3rd Winchester attacked the Confederates from three directions using their superiority in numbers to overwhelm the waiting rebels. The Union assault breaks the Confederate line, the southerners fall back and then literally, they run for the hills.
Union troops begin a pursuit with Sheridan setting up his command post at Winchester.
Building on his successes Phil Sheridan moves south from Winchester towards Strasburg and Fisher's Hill utilizing the hilly terrain of the Shenandoah Valley to camouflage portions of his army. Reconnoitering the Confederate position on Fisher's Hill Union officers can clearly see the southerners are well dug-in and advise Sheridan against an attack. Jubal Early had taken care in selecting this defensive position. Entrenched or not Phil Sheridan understood that he had momentum on his side, the high morale of a winning army and more importantly he out numbered the Confederates at Fisher's Hill 3 to 1.
The hilltop position at Fisher's Hill still gives you a commanding view of the northern Shenandoah Valley. Protected by the Shenandoah River and mountains to the south, Confederate troops in September 1864 reinforced Fisher's Hill utilizing the natural contours of the terrain to form a near perfect defensive position.
Utilizing his superiority in numbers Sheridan safely splits his forces at Fisher's Hill first attacking with his infantry to hold the Confederates in place while sending an independent force to out-flank the position.
The coordinated Union attack totally unnerves the Early's exhausted troops, breaks the defenses at Fisher's Hill and sends the Confederates flying south again in retreat. The Union attack was so sudden and complete that Early's Army of the Valley just disintegrates.
The Confederates are pressed in their retreat south on the Valley Pike. Harassed by Union cavalry during the entire sixty mile march to Harrisonburg the Confederates are forced into desperate rearguard actions along the way as General Early attempts to save the Army of the Valley from destruction.
Near Harrisonburg the two armies would skirmish around the old battlefields of Cross Keys and Port Republic before Sheridan decides to lead the Army of the Shenandoah back north to complete the second half of his mission in the valley.
Convinced the campaign is all but over, Sheridan begins the wholesale destruction of everything of value in the region. As Union troops march back toward Winchester they would put the Shenandoah Valley to the torch.
One of Sheridan's orders from Grant was to destroy whatever could be of use to the Confederates in the Shenandoah Valley. This meant everything from military material to the myriad of mills and farms that continued to provide sustenance to the Confederate armies in the field.
On October 13 1864, with Union forces encamped around Cedar Creek, Jubal Early's Army of the Valley returned to their old positions at Fisher's Hill.
While reconnoitering the Union position at Cedar Creek from Signal Knob Confederate General John Gordon saw an opportunity to turn things around. Gordon observed that the Union army camped at Cedar Creek obviously expected an attack on their right flank. This flank had been reinforced but the Union left flank seemed to be vulnerable. Gordon proposes a dawn attack on the Union left flank, Early agrees and the Battle of Cedar Creek is set in motion.
On the morning on October 19th heavy fog blanketed the Shenandoah Valley at Middletown Virginia. The Union troops in camp on the Belle Grove Plantation were just stirring when the Rebel onslaught began. Aided by the heavy fog Confederate troops surge forward and overwhelm the Federals in camp. Three entire Union Corps are routed and sent flying north as the Rebels paused to take advantage of the heavily supplied Union encampment.
This delay in continuing the fight at Cedar Creek would have devastating consequences for the Confederates….because Sheridan was on his way.
Phil Sheridan woke on October 19th in Winchester to the sounds of cannon fire coming from the south. He mounted his horse and began to head toward Cedar Creek in what would later be famously termed, "Sheridan's Ride".
As Sheridan approaches Middletown, Va he begins to see the evidence of the days fighting. Thousands of Union troops are walking rearward after the surprise Rebel attack. Sheridan quickly begins to reorganize these troops and is determined that the battle is not over yet.
The 18th century Belle Grove Plantation served as an HQ for both Union and Confederates throughout the Civil War and in 1864 was the site of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The Belle Grove Plantation and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are well preserved today and part of a public/private partnership having affiliations with the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
I love the colors that this technique produces. They are very pictoralist. The views of Fisher's Hill are stunning!
These photos are breathtaking. It's hard to avoid the modern structures and cars and that darn mine, but I don't see a trace of any in these shots. So evocative and moving. I have gone to many of the Cedar Creek reenactments, and this year's was especially inspiring. Thank you for capturing the essence of the event.
Margaret, Thank you so much for your comments on the work. Photographing with the pinhole camera can be challenging and yes, cars, telephone poles etc add another level of difficulty but photography, in one sense, is all about angles. I became a re-enactor so i could photograph these events from the inside and avoid being stuck with one perspective. And thank you for suggesting I somehow "captured the essence of the event". The "essence" of these events is exactly what I'm looking for when I'm out photographing, so thanks!


text:
$26 Million Rancho Cordova Fine
This story by Elanie Turner was published June 20, 2011 by the Sacramento Business Journal.
The California Public Utilities Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division on Monday proposed fining Pacific Gas and Electric Co. $26 million in shareholder funds for a 2008 gas leak and explosion in Rancho Cordova that killed one person and injured five others.
If approved by the CPUC's commissioners, it would be the largest safety-related fine assessed by the commission in more than a decade. PG&E admits, in a resolution filed today by the CPUC safety division, that it violated safety laws in connection with the Rancho Cordova explosion, according to the CPUC.
The resolution has been agreed to by the Consumer Protection and Safety Division and PG&E. Under the agreement, PG&E would pay $26 million fine in shareholder funds to the state's general fund and admits to violating pipeline safety regulations, including:
– The pipe that was installed at Paiute Way in September 2006 was not authorized for gas service;
– A pipe used in a repair at Paiute Way was not pressure tested in a manner required by law prior to reinstate gas service; and
– PG&E's response to a resident's Dec. 24, 2008, telephone call reporting an outdoor gas leak odor on Paiute Way was "unreasonably delayed and not effective."
PG&E would also reimburse the CPUC's investigation and proceeding costs.


Brimbank City Council's 2016-2017 Annual Budget meets the State Government's legislated cap of 2.5 per cent rates rise and is focussed on delivering value to the community.
Council has worked to minimise the impact of the constraint on revenue raising while continuing to deliver quality projects and services for the Brimbank community.
The Budget in its draft form was open for consultation and the Council received six written submissions. We valued the feedback received which was mainly to do with our ongoing parks and open space programs and referred the requests accordingly.
This is a financially responsible budget that has a total expenditure (recurrent and capital works) of $243.2 million. Council maintains a healthy capital works program of $57.3 million - including $4.8 million carried over from 2015/2016.
The additional pensioner discount of $25 off the rates bill is an ongoing commitment and remains in place.
Council had to find further efficiencies of $6.5 million to meet the State Government imposed 2.5 per cent rate cap. Council will continue to seek further efficiencies while continuing to deliver services our community depends on and contribute to making Brimbank a great place to live, work and visit.
Read the Annual Budget 2016-2017.
Brimbank City Council, together with the Department of Health and Human Services invites you to celebrate the culture, history and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Wathaurung artist and photographer Bindi Cole Chocka to speak at the next INfuse Artist's Networking event.
Join our creative community and come along to the latest INfuse artists' network event with Wathaurung artist and photographer Bindi Cole Chocka.
These INfuse sessions are designed to inspire and connect artists living and working in Brimbank and Melbourne's West.
INfuse aims to provide a platform for artists to share ideas and seek advice, access professional development opportunities and network with others.
Bookings: please RSVP to artspaces@brimbank.vic.gov.au or contact us on 9249 4600.
Council has released the Draft Brimbank Cycling and Walking Strategy Update 2016 for community consultation.
Since the adoption of the Brimbank Cycling and Walking Strategy in 2008, Council has constructed about 20km of off-road trails, 21km of on-road cycle routes, and other cycle related improvements at a cost of around $11m.
The draft Strategy Update outlines 32 strategic network improvements to provide Council with a clear plan for implementation, and an updated framework to guide investment over the next five to seven years.