26:0580(69)RO - Navy Resale and Ssevice Support Office, Field Support Office, San Diego, CA and NAGE Local R12-38, SEIU and NFFE Local 63 -- 1987 FLRAdec RP
[ v26 p580 ]
26:0580(69)RO
The decision of the Authority follows:
26 FLRA No. 69
NAVY RESALE AND SERVICES SUPPORT
OFFICE, FIELD SUPPORT OFFICE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Acitivity
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R12-38, SEIU/AFL-CIO
Petitioner
and
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 63
Incumbent Labor Organization
Case No. 8-RO-60010
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On February 20, 1987, the National Association of Government
Employees, Local R12-38, SEIU/AFL-CIO (NAGE) 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 Petition for Certification of Unit in the above-named case. In
its application for review, NAGE contends that compelling reasons exist
within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Regulations
for granting the application.
The Regional Director concluded that the representation petition
filed by NAGE was untimely under section 2422.3(e) of the Authority's
Regulations. In its application, NAGE contends that the Regional
Director's decision raises a substantial question of law and policy
regarding the interpretation and application of section 2422.3(e), due
to the absence of Authority precedent.
Section 2422.3(e) of our Regulations is the same in all material
respects as section 202.3(d) of the Assistant Secretary's Regulations
applicable under Executive Order 11491, as amended. 29 C.F.R. Section
202.3(d) (1977). The Assistant Secretary explained the underlying
purpose of that language in Department of the Navy, Great Lakes Naval
Base, Public Works Center, Great Lakes, Illinois, 7 A/SLMR 1003 (1977).
He concluded that the regulation was promulgated to address the
situation where, because of the filing of a petition for an election and
its subsequent withdrawal by a rival union, the activity and the
incumbent union are deprived of the full "insulated" period within which
to negotiate a new agreement. The regulation therefore provided for a
90-day period free from rival claim for the activity and the incumbent
to consummate a new agreement. Under section 7135(b) of the Statute,
that decision remains in full force and effect. See Florida National
Guard, St. Augustine, Florida, 25 FLRA No. 60 (1987) (in which the
Authority noted in a similar situation that the Assistant Secretary's
decision remains in full force and effect unless revised or superseded
by decisions issued pursuant to the Statute). Therefore, we conclude
that section 2422.3(e) of our Regulations reflects that same purpose.
Upon consideration of NAGE's application for review, we conclude that
no compelling reason exists for granting the application. Rather, NAGE
in essence simply expresses disagreement with the Regional Director's
application of our Regulations. The Regional Director's application has
not been shown to be in error, a departure from precedent or to have
prejudicially affected the rights of any party.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2422.17(f)(3) of our Rules and
Regulations, the application for review of the Regional Director's
Decision and Order on Petition for Certification of Unit is denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III
Henry B. Frazier III, Chairman
/s/ Jean McKee
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.