33:0864(117)CU - - Commerce, NOAA, Office of Marine Operations and District No. 1 - MEBA/NMU - - 1989 FLRAdec RP - - v33 p864
[ v33 p864 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
33 FLRA No. 117
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
OFFICE OF MARINE OPERATIONS
DISTRICT NO. 1-MEBA/NMU
ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
June 9, 1989
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Agency) has filed an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in the above-referenced cases. For reasons set out below, the Agency's application for review is untimely and must be dismissed.
The Authority's regulations provide that "[a] party may file an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order with the Authority within sixty (60) days of the date of such action." 5 C.F.R. 2422.17(a). The 60-day time limit for filing an application for review "may not be extended or waived." Id. See also 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(d). An application for review must be filed with the Authority's Docket Room in Washington, D.C. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.24(a). The time limit for filing an application for review may not be extended or waived. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(d).
The Regional Director's Decision and Order in this case is dated February 3, 1989. Any application for review of the Decision and Order had to be filed no later than April 4, 1989, to be timely filed. The application for review was filed by the Agency in the Authority's Docket Room (mailed in an official penalty mail envelope) on May 1, 1989.(*)
The Agency states that the "application for review was sent by regular mail on March 29, 1989, to the Federal Labor Relations Authority at 500 C Street, SW." The Agency argues that its application for review should be considered timely filed because the other parties received their copies prior to April 4, l989. The Agency maintains that it should not be penalized for using regular mail to file its application because the Authority no longer requires the use of certified mail to file documents.
The Authority has no record of receiving an application for review filed in the above cases other than the application for review filed by the Agency on May 1, 1989. In addition, the Agency provides no evidence to establish that it filed an application for review with the Authority's Docket Room before the expiration of the time limit. Although the Authority's regulations, amended on December 22, 1986, no longer require documents to be filed by certified mail, the filing party still bears the responsibility to ensure that the document is timely filed in the Authority's Docket Room.
The Agency's application for review was not timely filed. Accordingly, the Agency's application for review is dismissed.
For the Authority.
Clyde B. Blandford, Jr.
Acting Executive Director
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
*/ By letter dated May 4, 1989, the Regional Director of Region III of the Authority advised the Authority that "on April 3, 1989, the Washington, D.C. Regional Office received what appears to be an original of an Application for Review of the Regional Director's decision . . . filed by the Activity." An application for review may not be filed in a Regional Office. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.24(a). See also American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1735 and Department of the Navy, Public Works Department, Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas, 28 FLRA 771 (1987).