United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer Research Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi (Agency/Petitioner) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3310, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Incumbent Intervenor) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Federal District 1, Iamaw, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Incumbent Intervenor) and International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 4, Chapter 1, AFL-CIO, Clc (Labor Organization/Incumbent Intervenor) and International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 1017, AFL-CIO, Clc (Labor Organization/Incumbent Intervenor)

[ v57 p655 ]

57 FLRA No. 127

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI
(Agency/Petitioner)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3310, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization/Incumbent Intervenor)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, FEDERAL DISTRICT 1
IAMAW, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization/Incumbent Intervenor)

and

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS
LOCAL 4, CHAPTER 1, AFL-CIO, CLC
(Labor Organization/Incumbent Intervenor)

and

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS
LOCAL 1017, AFL-CIO, CLC
(Labor Organization/Incumbent Intervenor)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

_____

AT-RP-00038
WA-RP-00080

December 17, 2001

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

I.     Statement of the Case

      This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by the National Federation of Federal Employees, Federal District 1, IAMAW, AFL-CIO (NFFE), under § 2422.31(c) of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filled an opposition.

      Under § 2422.31(c), the Authority may grant an application for review when the application demonstrates [ v57 p656 ] that review is warranted on one or more of the following grounds: (1) the decision raises an issue for which there is an absence of precedent; (2) established law or policy warrants reconsideration; or, (3) there is a genuine issue over whether the Regional Director (RD) has: (i) failed to apply established law; (ii) committed a prejudicial procedural error; (iii) committed a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter. In this case, NFFE contends that established law or policy warrants reconsideration and that there is a genuine issue over whether the RD has failed to comply with established law.

      The application for review was filed by NFFE on October 26, 2001, but was not received by the Authority until December 11, 2001. After receiving the application, the Authority contacted the remaining parties and requested that they resubmit, by fax, any pleadings they had filed by mail. The Agency's opposition, along with evidence that it was filed by mail on November 9, 2001, were received by the Authority by fax on December 12, 2001. The delay in delivery was due to the quarantine of the mail in the U.S. Postal Service's Brentwood facility in Washington, D.C., which services the Authority's headquarters. In this unprecedented situation, the Authority is granting the application for review to provide the Authority adequate time to discharge its obligations under the Federal Service Lab