25:0728(60)AC - Florida NG, St. Augustine, FL and NAGE Local R5-107, SEIU -- 1987 FLRAdec RP



[ v25 p728 ]
25:0728(60)AC
The decision of the Authority follows:


 25 FLRA No. 60
 
 FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD 
 ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL R5-107, SEIU,AFL-CIO
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 4-AC-60011
 
                   ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
 
    I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This case is before the Authority on an application filed by the
 Union under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 for review of the Regional Director's decision and order on the Union's
 petition for amendment of certification.
 
    II.  Regional Director's Decision
 
    The Union's petition sought to amend the certification issued in Case
 No. 42-1244 to reflect a change in the name of the representative from
 National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-120 to National
 Association of Government Employees, Local R5-107.  The Regional
 Director dismissed the Union's petition.  She determined that in order
 to assure that a petition for amendment of certification based on a
 merger of locals accurately reflects the desires of the membership,
 certain procedures must be followed.  The procedures that she set forth
 were based on a decision issued under E.O. 11491:  Veterans
 Administration Hospital, Montrose, New York, 4 A/SLMR 858 (1974), review
 denied, 3 FLRC 259 (1975).  She also cited in support of the procedures
 she set forth the unpublished decision of the Authority in U.S. Army
 Armament Research and Development Command, Case No. 2-AC-1 (July 30,
 1980).
 
    III.  Application for Review
 
    In its application the Union contends that compelling reasons exist
 within the meaning of the Authority's Rules for granting the
 application.  Specifically, the Union contends under section
 2422.17(c)(1) that a substantial question of law or policy is raised
 because of an absence of Authority precedent for the Regional Director's
 decision.  The Union argues that a substantial question of law or policy
 is raised for two reasons.  The Union first argues that the procedures
 which were set forth in VA Hospital, Montrose apply only to a change in
 affiliation;  they do not apply to a merger of two local unions of the
 same national union.  Secondly, the Union argues that there is no
 published precedent of the Authority supporting the Regional Director's
 decision.
 
    IV.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    We conclude that no substantial question of law or policy has been
 raised and that consequently no compelling reasons exist within the
 meaning of section 2422.17(c) for granting the Union's application for
 review.  In particular, we conclude that no substantial question of law
 or policy is raised by the Regional Director's application to the
 Union's petition of procedures that originally had been applied to a
 change in affiliation.  The unpublished decision of the Authority in
 U.S. Army Research and Development Command, Case No. 2-AC-1 (July 30,
 1980), supports the application of such procedures to a merger of locals
 of the same national union.  Moreover, the private-sector practice is to
 apply generally the same procedures to both mergers and affiliation
 changes.  The National Labor Relations Board has generally applied, with
 court approval, for example, NLRB v. Commercial Letter, Inc., 496 F.2d
 35 (8th Cir. 1974), the same procedures to mergers as it has applied to
 changes in affiliation, for example, F. W. Woolworth Co., 268 NLRB 805,
 806 (1984).
 
    We likewise conclued that no substantial question of law or policy is
 raised by reason of the precedent cited by the Regional Director.  The
 fact that U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command was not a
 published decision does not make the Regional Director's decision lack
 precedent.  Moreover, with respect to VA Hospital, Montrose, we note
 that under section 7135(b) of the Statute, such decision remains in full
 force and effect because it has not been revised or superseded by
 decisions issued pursuant to the Statute.
 
    V.  Orde