The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is currently closed due to a lapse in appropriations. FLRA offices, including the Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Federal Service Impasses Panel, and all Office of the General Counsel Regional Offices, are not accepting filings, and no FLRA personnel are available for that purpose, except as provided below in Section 1.  Read the full announcement here.

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

45:0326(28)RO - - VA, John J. Pershing Medical Center, Poplar Bluff, MO and AFGE Local 2338 - - 1992 FLRAdec RO - - v45 p326

[ v45 p326 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

45 FLRA No. 28













June 23, 1992

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 three employees under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The employees seek review of the Acting Regional Director's (ARD) report and findings dismissing their objection to the conduct of a representation election. Neither the Activity nor the Petitioner filed an opposition to the employees' application.

For the following reasons, we deny the application for review.

II. Background and Regional Director's Decision

The ARD conducted a mail ballot election in a unit of five employees. The ARD received and counted two ballots, which were cast for the Union. No additional ballots were received by the ARD. Subsequently, the ARD received a letter from three employees, James E. Akers, Dennis R. Fowler, and Charles E. Moon, who asserted that they voted against Union representation and mailed their ballots according to the election requirements. They requested the ARD to rerun the election.

The ARD construed the employees' letter as an objection to the procedural conduct of the election. However, the ARD found that none of the employees was a party to the case and concluded that none had standing to object to the conduct of the election. Accordingly, the ARD dismissed the objection.

III. Application for Review

Employees Akers, Fowler, and Moon argue that they properly and timely mailed their ballots casting votes against Union representation. They assert that the election should not stand because it "does not represent the wishes of the majority." Application at 1.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

We conclude, for the following reasons, that no compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for granting the application for review.

Section 2422.21(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides, in pertinent part, that a "party" may object to the conduct of an election. As relevant here, "party" is defined in section 2421.11(a) as a person: (1) filing or named in a charge, petition, or request; or (2) whose intervention in a proceeding has been permitted or directed by the Authority.

We find no compelling reasons to review the ARD's determination that none of the employees is a party to this case. It is undisputed that, as found by the ARD, none of the employees:

was a party in the filing of the original representation petition in this case; none were granted intervention at any time; none participated in the election arrangements or signed, either individually or on behalf of other employees, the Election Agreement in this case.

ARD Report at 3. As review of the ARD's finding that none of the employees is a party is not warranted, review of the ARD's dismissal of the objection to the election also is not warranted. For example, General Services Administration Regional Office, Region 4, 2 Rulings on Requests for Review of the Assistant Secretary 379 (1976) (finding employees did not have standing, individually or collectively, to file objections to an election); Clarence E. Clapp, 279 NLRB 330 (1986) (in dismissing objection to election filed by eligible voter, the National Labor Relations Board noted that it "has long held that individual employees are not 'parties' within the definition of 'party'" in the Board's regulations).

The employees have not demonstrated that review of the ARD's decision is warranted under the standards set forth in section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, we will deny the application for review.

V. Order

The application for review is denied.

(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)