12:0164(39)RO - DOD, Navy, Naval Air Rework Facility (NAS), Norfolk, Virginia and National Association of Aeronautical Examiners and AFGE Local 2225 -- 1983 FLRAdec RP
[ v12 p164 ]
12:0164(39)RO
The decision of the Authority follows:
12 FLRA No. 39
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY (NAS)
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
Activity
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
AERONAUTICAL EXAMINERS
Petitioner
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO
Intervenor
Case No. 4-RO-20013
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW
The request for review filed by the Intervenor, American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 2225, AFL-CIO (AFGE), seeks reversal of
the Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections to the
election held in the above named case, based partly on objections to
pre-election conduct and partly on the Regional Director's method of
investigating those objections. /1/
With regard to the objections based on pre-election conduct, AFGE
claims that the election notices were not properly posted; that the
polling place was hidden from view; and that only two of the
approximately 35 employees questioned by AFGE indicated that they had
seen the Notice of Election. In agreement with the Regional Director,
and based on her reasoning, the Authority finds no merit to these
contentions. In so concluding, the Authority notes, as found by the
Regional Director, that 39 out of 54 eligible employees voted in the
election; that only one of the 15 non-voting employees claimed to have
had no knowledge of the election; and that AFGE had agreed to the
election site prior to the election and only one employee claimed to
have had difficulty in finding it and did not vote. Further, inasmuch
as the Regional Director determined that 14 of the 15 non-voting
employees were aware of the election but failed to vote for reasons not
relevant herein, it appears clear that none of AFGE's objections
involves conduct that could have affected the outcome of the election.
With regard to the Regional Director's method of investigating AFGE's
objections, it is contended in the request for review that the Regional
Director's staff (1) did not interview AFGE's Acting President while
investigating the objections, thereby denying him the opportunity to
present further visual evidence; (2) arbitrarily and capriciously
accepted testimony from the Activity and Petitioner, National
Association of Aeronautical Examiners (NAAE), without offering AFGE the
opportunity to respond; and (3) erred by assigning to this matter an
individual who was directly involved in several of the allegations of
improper pre-election conduct. Section 2422.20(b) of the Authority's
Rules and Regulations, in pertinent part, provides that "(the) objecting
party shall bear the burden of proof at all stages of the proceeding
regarding all matters raised in its objections." Therefore, AFGE has the
burden of proving the foregoing allegations to the Authority through
supporting evidence submitted with its request for review and
establishing that they were sufficient to warrant setting aside the
Regional Director's Report and Findings on Objections and to require
further processing of the original objections. AFGE has not met this
burden; indeed, it has not even attempted to show how the alleged
conduct involved in the objections to the Regional Director's
investigation could have affected the results thereof.
Accordingly, the request for review, seeking reversal of the Regional
Director's Report and Findings on Objections, is denied, and this case
is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for further appropriate
action.
Issued, Washington, D.C., June 7, 1983
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ As section 2422.20(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
requires that objections to an election be filed within five days after
the tally of ballots has been furnished to the parties, the Authority
finds that AFGE's objections concerning an alleged delay of several
minutes in opening the election polls and the unspecified unlawful
assistance to the Petitioner-- raised for the first time by AFGE in its
request for review-- are untimely filed. Thus, they have not been
considered. See also section 2429.5 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, which provides in pertinent part that "(t)he Authority will
not consider . . . any issue which was not presented in the proceedings
before the Regional Director . . . ."