15:0279(61)CU - Air Force Accounting and Finance Center, Lowry AFB, CO and AFGE Local 2040 -- 1984 FLRAdec RP
[ v15 p279 ]
15:0279(61)CU
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 61
AIR FORCE ACCOUNTING
AND FINANCE CENTER
LOWRY AIR FORCE BASE, COLORADO
Activity/Petitioner
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2040
Labor Organization
Case No. 7-CU-40001
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On June 1, 1984, the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center, Lowry
Air Force Base, Colorado (Petitioner), filed a timely application for
review, pursuant to section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, seeking to set aside the Regional Director's Decision and
Order on Petition for Clarification of Unit in the above-named case. In
support thereof, the Petitioner contends that compelling reasons within
the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations exist for granting its application. /1/
Upon consideration of the Petitioner's application for review,
including all arguments in support thereof, the Authority concludes that
no compelling reasons exist for granting the application. Rather, the
application in essence expresses mere disagreement with the Regional
Director's findings, which have not been shown to be clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2422.17(f)(3) of the Authority's
Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the application for review of
the Regional Director's Decision and Order on Petition for Clarification
of Unit be, and it hereby is, denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., July 17, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Section 2422.17(c) provides:
(c) The Authority may grant an application for review only
where it appears that compelling reasons exist therefor.
Accordingly, an application for review may be granted only upon
one or more of the following grounds:
(1) That a substantial question of law or policy is raised
because of (i) the absence of, or (ii) a departure from Authority
precedent;
(2) That there are extraordinary circumstances warranting
reconsideration of an Authority policy;
(3) That the conduct of the hearing held or any ruling made in
connection with the proceeding has resulted in prejudicial error;
or
(4) That the Regional Director's decision on a substantial
factual issue is clearly erroneous and such error prejudicially
affects the rights of a party.