34:0073(17)CU - - Veterans Affairs, Martinsburg, WV and Addie V. Murphy - - 1989 FLRAdec RP - - v34 p73
[ v34 p73 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
34 FLRA No. 17
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA
ADDIE V. MURPHY
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
December 27, 1989
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by Addie V. Murphy (the Petitioner) under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Petitioner seeks review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order Dismissing Petition for Clarification of Unit.
In as much as the Authority had two vacancies when this application for review was received, Acting Chairman McKee issued an Interim Order on May 8, 1989, directing that consideration of the application be deferred until further notice. This interim order preserved the parties' rights under the Statute to Authority consideration of the Regional Director's decision.
The Authority now considers the Petitioner's application for review. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the application should be granted.
II. Regional Director's Decision
The Regional Director found that the petition for unit clarification was not filed in accordance with section 2422.1(d) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Section 2422.1(d) provides that "[a] petition for clarification of an existing unit or for amendment of recognition or certification may be filed by an activity or agency or by a labor organization which is currently recognized by the activity or agency as an exclusive representative." Because the Regional Director determined that the petition was filed by an individual who was not acting on behalf of the exclusive representative, the Regional Director concluded that the petition was not filed in accordance with the Authority's Rules and Regulations and dismissed the petition.
III. Application for Review
The Petitioner contends that compelling reasons exist under section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for the Authority to grant her application. The Petitioner asserts that "[t]here are extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Agency policy." Application at 2.
We grant the Petitioner's application for review because compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c). The Regional Director's application of section 2422.1(d) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations raises a substantial question of law, specifically, whether the application of t