[ v41 p791 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
41 FLRA No. 71
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1457, AFL-CIO (AFGE) under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. AFGE seeks review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order on Request for Intervention denying AFGE's request for intervention in the above-captioned case. Neither the Activity nor the Petitioner filed an opposition to the application.
For the reasons discussed below, we deny the application for review.
II. Background and Regional Director's Decision
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking an election to determine the exclusive representative, if any, of the nonprofessional employees of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California (GGNRA). Thereafter, AFGE timely filed a request for intervention on the theory that the GGNRA employees had accreted to one of AFGE's existing bargaining units at the Presidio of San Francisco. AFGE did not submit a showing of interest in support of its request.
AFGE represents Department of the Army employees in nine separate bargaining units at the Presidio. AFGE claimed before the Regional Director that the GGNRA employees had accreted to one of its units at the Presidio of San Francisco.(*) In support of its position, AFGE asserted that: (1) the United States Army Information Systems Command (USAISC) provides communications services to the GGNRA; (2) the Presidio provides gas, electricity and water to the GGNRA; and (3) part of the GGNRA is on property owned by the Presidio.
The GGNRA maintained before the Regional Director "that there is not, and never has been, an organizational relationship between any Department of [the] Army activity at the Presidio . . . and the GGNRA." Regional Director's Decision at 2. The GGNRA also asserted that there is no contractual or reimbursable relationship between USAISC and GGNRA and that the Presidio does not own any property on which the GGNRA is situated. Finally, GGNRA argued that "its employees share no community of interest with any employees in AFGE's nine Department of [the] Army bargaining units, since GGNRA employees work for a different [F]ederal agency." Id.
The Regional Director concluded that "[t]he evidence submitted by AFGE failed to establish that the GGNRA employees accreted to any of AFGE's bargaining units." Id. In this regard, the Regional Director found that although USAISC may provide communications services to GGNRA and the Presidio does provide utility services to the GGNRA, "providing such services is insufficient to establish that GGNRA employees have accreted to any of AFGE's bargaining units." Id. In reaching his conclusion, the Regional Director noted that the GGNRA is part of the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior, while all of AFGE's units include only Department of the Army employees. Therefore, the Regional Director denied AFGE's request for intervention.
III. AFGE's Application for Review
AFGE filed a timely application for review of the Regional Director's decision denying its request to intervene. AFGE contends that the evidence in this case "more than substantiates [its] claim for accretion." Application at 1. AFGE asserts that "GGNRA misrepresented itself when it stated that there is not, and never has been an organizational relationship between any Department of [the] Army Activity at Presidio and GGNRA." Id. AFGE further argues that it "is not true" that "there is no contractual or reimbursable relationship between USAISC and GGNRA." Id. Finally, AFGE states that the Regional Director failed to acknowledge "that USAISC was assigned to [the United States Army Forces Command] in 1984." Id.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
We have considered AFGE's application for review and conclude that no compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for granting the application.
Section 2422.5(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides, in relevant part, that a labor organization seeking to intervene in a representation proceeding filed under section 2422.2(a) or (b) must submit to the Regional Director a showing of interest of 10 percent or more of the employees in the unit specified in the representation petition, or a current or recently expired agreement with the activity covering any of the employees involved, or evidence that it is the currently recognized or certified exclusive representative of any of the employees involved.
AFGE based its request for intervention before the Regional Director on the theory that the GGNRA employees had accreted to one of AFGE's bargaining units at the Presidio. The Regional Director considered all of the evidence before him and concluded that the GGNRA employees did not accrete to any of AFGE's bargaining units. The Regional Director found that although USAISC may provide communications services to GGNRA and the Presidio does provide utility services to GGNRA, providing such services failed to establish that GGNRA employees had accreted to any of AFGE's existing units. Additionally, in reaching his conclusion, the Regional Director noted that GGNRA is part of the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior, while AFGE's bargaining units include only Department of the Army employees.
On review of the record, we find that AFGE has not demonstrated that the Regional Director erred in determining that the GNNRA employees had not accreted to any of AFGE's existing units. AFGE's application for review expresses nothing more than disagreement with the Regional Director's findings and conclusions, which are based on record evidence and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous or to have prejudicially affected AFGE's rights. Accordingly, we deny AFGE's application for review. See United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Area Office, Gallup, New Mexico, 34 FLRA 413, 420-22 (1990).
The application for review is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
*/ The Regional Director noted that AFGE had raised this theory in an earlier representation petition that was dismissed in Case No. 9-CU-10004 (May 15, 1991).