38:0834(69)AC - - Army, HQ, Sixth U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco, CA and AFGE Local 1457 - - 1990 FLRAdec RP - - v38 p834
[ v38 p834 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
38 FLRA No. 69
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, SIXTH U.S. ARMY
PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 1457, AFL-CIO
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
December 7, 1990
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 the Petitioner (AFGE) under 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
On May 17, 1990, AFGE filed petitions in Case Nos. 9-AC-00002, 9-AC-00003, 9-AC-00004 and 9-AC-00005 seeking to amend the certifications or recognitions of four units it represents to reflect that Headquarters Sixth U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco(1) (HQ Sixth Army or Activity) had replaced Headquarters, Presidio of San Francisco (HQ Presidio) as the employing activity of the units. AFGE claimed that HQ Sixth Army became the employing activity as a result of a reorganization that caused the consolidation of HQ Sixth Army and HQ Presidio, both located at Presidio of San Francisco Installation, San Francisco, California (Presidio).
The Regional Director found that HQ Sixth Army and HQ Presidio had been consolidated. The Regional Director determined, however, that the certifications and recognitions should not be amended as sought by AFGE. Instead, the Regional Director amended the certifications and recognitions merely to reflect the change in the name of the command after the reorganization.
The application seeks review only of the Regional Director's finding regarding the date of the consolidation of HQ Sixth Army and HQ Presidio. AFGE contends the consolidation occurred on October 30, 1987 and not on October 1, 1988, as found by the Regional Director. Regional Director's Decision at 3 and n. 2. The Activity did not file an opposition to the application for review.
For the reasons discussed below, we deny the application for review.
II. Regional Director's Decision
The Regional Director found that on October 1, 1988, HQ Sixth Army and HQ Presidio were consolidated. Regional Director's Decision and Order at 3. With respect to the date of the consolidation, the Regional Director noted as follows:
Although Petitioner repeatedly asserted during the hearing that the consolidation occurred in 1986 instead of 1988, no probative evidence was offered to contradict evidence establishing that the consolidation occurred on October 1, 1988.
Id. at 3, n. 2.
Prior to the consolidation, HQ Presidio was the employing activity of the four units represented by AFGE, and the Commander, HQ Presidio was the Installation Commander of Presidio. Furthermore, HQ Sixth Army was located at Presidio and was provided various services by HQ Presidio.
On the date of the consolidation, the Commanding General, Sixth U.S. Army assumed command of Presidio and his command was renamed Headquarters, Sixth U.S. Army and Presidio of San Francisco. Id. at 3. On the same date, the Commander, HQ Presidio was redesignated Commander, U.S. Army Garrison (Garrison Commander) and his command was renamed Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Presidio of San Francisco (Garrison). Id.
On the date of the consolidation, the Commanding General, Sixth U.S. Army delegated to the Garrison Commander his duties as Installation Commander. Id. at 4. In December 1988, the Commanding General, Sixth U.S. Army delegated authority for civilian personnel management to the Garrison Commander. Id.
The Regional Director found that since the consolidation, Garrison had become the successor activity to HQ Presidio in mission and function and as the employing activity of the four units represented by AFGE. Id.
Furthermore, the Regional Director found that Garrison and HQ Sixth Army remained separate organizations. Id. Accordingly, the Regional Director concluded that it was not appropriate to amend the certifications and recognitions to reflect that HQ Sixth Army had replaced HQ Presidio as the employing activity. The Regional Director, however, amended the certifications or recognitions to reflect that Garrison had become the successor activity to HQ Presidio. Id. at 5.
III. AFGE's Application for Review
AFGE contends that the evidence submitted regarding the date of the consolidation was incorrect and, therefore, that the Regional Director erred in finding that the consolidation occurred in 1988 and not in 1987.(2) AFGE supports its application with an attached document, a January 14, 1988, memorandum from Robert D. Wiegand, Major General, GS Chief of Staff, to Commander, Presidio of San Francisco concerning an evaluation of the Presidio of San Francisco Directorate of Contracting by the U.S. Forces Command (FORSCOM). AFGE argues that this document establishes that the consolidation occurred in 1987.
Upon careful consideration of the application for review, we conclude that compelling reasons do not exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of our Rules and Regulations for granting review of the Regional Director's decision. Rather, the application expresses nothing more than disagreement with the Regional Director's findings and conclusions, which are based on record evidence developed at a hearing and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous or to have prejudicially affected the rights of any party.
In its application AFGE seeks review on the ground that the Regional Director erred in finding that the consolidation of HQ Sixth Army and HQ Presidio occurred in 1888 and not in 1987, but has not shown that this finding is clearly erroneous. On the contrary, as noted by the Regional Director, the record evidence developed at the hearing contains information that supports the Regional Director's factual determination that the consolidation occurred in 1988. Moreover, in view of the fact that it is undisputed that a consolidation of HQ Sixth Army and HQ Presidio occurred, AFGE has not established, nor is it otherwise apparent from the record, that the date of consolidation is relevant to the proposed amendments sought by AFGE or to the amendments ordered by the Regional Director in this case.
Accordingly, we deny the application for review.
The application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order is denied.