23:0340(44)DR - Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital, Loma Linda, CA and Suzanne C. Lareau, R.N. and Pettis Memorial Registered Nurses Asscociation, Nurses Aassociation of California -- 1986 FLRAdec RP
[ v23 p340 ]
23:0340(44)DR
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.