[ v23 p340 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
23 FLRA No. 44 JERRY L. PETTIS MEMORIAL VETERANS HOSPITAL, LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA Activity and SUZANNE C. LAREAU, R.N. Petitioner and PETTIS MEMORIAL REGISTERED NURSES ASSOCIATION, UNITED STATES NURSES ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA Incumbent Case No. 8-DR-50002 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW On July 25, 1986, Suzanne L. Lareau, R.N. (the 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 Objections in the above-named case. The Petitioner contends that compelling reasons exists within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations to support the application for review. /*/ Upon consideration of the Petitioner'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 precedent 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 of the Regional Director's Decision and Order on Objections be, and it hereby is, denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., September 10, 1986. /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member /s/ Jean McKee, 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 therefore. 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.