U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

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 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 12 FLRA No. 39
                                            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
 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 . . . ."