49:1648(150)DR - - Sacramento Army Depot, Sacramento, CA and Michael M. Burnett and AFGE, Local 1681 - - 1994 FLRAdec RP - - v49 p1648
[ v49 p1648 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
49 FLRA No. 150
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT
MICHAEL M. BURNETT, AN INDIVIDUAL
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 1681, AFL-CIO
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
July 21, 1994
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 Petitioner under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Petitioner seeks review of the Regional Director's (RD's) Decision and Order dismissing the petition in this case. No opposition to the Petitioner's application for review was filed.
For the following reasons, we deny the application for review.
II. Background and RD's Decision
The Petitioner filed a petition and an amended petition for decertification of exclusive representative, seeking an election among a bargaining unit of wage grade and general schedule employees at the Activity to determine whether the Union should continue to be the exclusive representative.
The RD found that the showing of interest in support of the petition did not comply with the requirements of section 2421.16 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations because the documents that constituted the showing of interest "do not clearly indicate that the employees no longer wish to be represented by the Union" and because the employees' signatures were not dated.(1) RD's decision at 2. Consequently, the RD determined that the petition was not accompanied by an adequate showing of interest, as required by section 7111(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and section 2422.2(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.(2) Accordingly, the RD dismissed the petition.
III. Application for Review
The Petitioner seeks reinstatement of the petition in this case under section 2422.17(c)(4) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.(3) In this regard, the Petitioner disputes the RD's finding that the documents that constituted the showing of interest did not clearly indicate that the employees no longer wished to be represented by the Union. The Petitioner contends that the RD's position regarding the language of those forms was a matter of the RD's "personal interpretation and is in no way reflective of the two presented implied meanings which are clearly incorporated in both petitions." Application at 1. The Petitioner also contends that, at the request of the Regional Office, he sufficiently cured the deficiency regarding the undated signatures on the showing of interest petitions by filing an affidavit of authenticity setting forth the period when the signatures were obtained.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
We conclude, for the reasons set forth below, 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.
The Petitioner submitted two different types of signed documents with his original petition to demonstrate a showing of interest. The first contains numerous signatures on two sheets, and states that the signers "deem it necessary to revoke [their] loyalty and support" of two specified officials of the Union and that the signers "collectively execute [their] rights . . . to decertify the current union executive board members, mention[ed] above[.]"(4) The second form, which contains one signature per sheet, requests that the signer indicate his or her preference by checking one or more of the following options: (1) "petition[ ] for a labor organization to cease to be the exclusive [representative]"[;] (2) "conduct an election for secret ballot for a new president and vice-president"[;] and (3) "I do not agree with this process and suggest the following[.]"(5)
We agree with the RD that the submitted showing of interest does not clearly indicate that the signers desired an election to decertify the Union as their exclusive representative. Rather, it appears that in signing the forms described above, the employees were seeking only the ouster from office of the current Union leadership, a procedure that does not require the decertification of the previously chosen exclusive representative. In particular, we note that the multi-signature forms, which contain almost all of the submitted signatures, speak only about revoking the support for certain specified Union officials and the election of new executive board members. And, although the other form contains one option that would involve a decertification election, it also contains language relating to an election for new officers. Moreover, even if both showing of interest forms were to be viewed, as the Petitioner contends, as having "two presented implied meanings[,]" they would still be unacceptable as evidence of the employees' interest in decertifying the Union as the employees' exclusive representative. Application at 1. See Report on a Ruling of the Assistant Secretary No. 52, 2 A/SLMR 641 (1972), (the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor ruled that under Executive Order 11491, which preceded the Statute, it was inherently confusing to obtain signatures on dual purpose documents, and that, therefore, the resultant signatures were unreliable and unacceptable as evidence of the employees' interest). We see no reason to depart from this holding. See section 7135(b) of the Statute.(6)
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the RD's factual findings with respect to the intent of the employees are clearly erroneous under section 2422.17(c)(4) o