15:0241(44)DR - Army, Letterman Army Medical Center, Nutrition Care Division, Presidio of San Francisco, CA and Willie D. Harris and NMUA -- 1984 FLRAdec RP
[ v15 p241 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 44 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LETTERMAN ARMY MEDICAL CENTER NUTRITION CARE DIVISION PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Activity and WILLIE D. HARRIS An Individual/Petitioner and NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO Labor Organization/Intervenor Case No. 9-DR-40001 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW On May 8, 1984, the National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO (Intervenor), filed a timely application for review, pursuant to section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, seeking to set aside the Regional Director's Decision and Order in the above-named case. In support thereof, the Intervenor contends that compelling reasons within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations exist for granting its application. /1/ Upon consideration of the Intervenor's application for review, including all arguments in support thereof, the Authority concludes that no compelling reasons exist for granting the application. Rather, the application expresses mere disagreement with the Regional Director's findings which have not been shown to be clearly erroneous. Accordingly, pursuant to section 2422.17(f)(3) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order be, and it hereby is, denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., July 2, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ Section 2422.17(c) provides: (c) The Authority may grant an application for review only where it appears that compelling reasons exist therefor. Accordingly, an application for review may be granted only one or more of the following grounds: (1) That a substantial question of law or policy is raised because of (i) the absence of, or (ii) a departure from, Authority precedent; (2) That there are extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of an Authority policy; (3) That the conduct of the hearing held or any ruling made in connection with the proceeding has resulted in prejudicial error; or (4) That the Regional Director's decision on a substantial factual issue is clearly erroneous and such error prejudicially affects the rights of a party.