---

 23 FLRA No. 44
 
 JERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL
 VETERANS HOSPITAL, LOMA
 LINDA, CALIFORNIA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 SUZANNE C. LAREAU, R.N.
 Petitioner
 
 and
 
 PETTIS MEMORIAL REGISTERED
 NURSES ASSOCIATION, UNITED STATES
 NURSES ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
 Incumbent
 
                                            Case No. 8-DR-50002
 
                   ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
 
    On July 25, 1986, Suzanne L. Lareau, R.N. (the Petitioner) 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 on Objections in the above-named case.
 The Petitioner contends that compelling reasons exists within the
 meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 to support the application for review.  /*/
 
    Upon consideration of the Petitioner's application for review,
 including all arguments in support thereof, the Authority concludes that
 no compelling reason exists for granting the application.  Rather, the
 application in essence expresses mere disagreement with the Regional
 Director's findings which are based on precedent and have not been shown
 to be clearly erroneous or to have prejudicially affected the rights of
 any party.
 
    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 on Objections be, and it
 hereby is, denied.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., September 10, 1986.
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (*) Section 2422.17(c) provides:
 
    (c) The Authority may grant an application for review only where it
 appears that compelling reasons exist therefore.  Accordingly, an
 application for review may be granted only upon 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. 
 
 
 

---