[ v22 p813 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
22 FLRA No. 87 U.S. NAVAL HOSPITAL GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2107, AFL-CIO Labor Organization/Petitioner and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 167 Labor Organization/Intervenor Case No. 5-RO-60005 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR STAY On June 5, 1986, the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) 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 Certification of Representative in the above-named case. NFFE also filed a request for a stay of such Decision and Order on Petition for Certification of Representative. NFFE contends that compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations to support the application for review. /*/ Upon consideration of NFFE's application for review, including all arguments in support thereof, the Authority concludes that no compelling reason exists for granting the application. Rather, the application in essence expresses mere disagreement with the Regional Director's findings which are based on the Authority's Rules and Regulations and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous or to have prejudicially affected the rights of any party. Accordingly, pursuant to section 2422.17(f)(3) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the application for review and request for a stay of the Regional Director's Decision and Order on Petition for Certification of Representative be, and it hereby is, denied. Issued, Washignton, D.C., July 29, 1986. /s/ JERRY L. CALHOUN Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman /s/ HENRY B. FRAZIER III Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- (*) 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.