[ 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) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Rather, the Petitioner's assertions constitute mere disagreement with the RD's findings of fact, evaluation of the evidence, and conclusions based on those evaluations and provide no basis for granting review of the RD's decision. See U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas, 46 FLRA 1011, 1025 (1992). Therefore, we will deny the application for review.(7)
The application for review of the RD's Decision and Order is denied.
BECAUSE OF CERTAIN ONGOING CURRENT EVENTS, WE, THE MEMBERS OF AFGE LOCAL 1681, BARGAINING UNIT HERE AT SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT, DEEM IT NECESSARY TO REVOKE OUR LOYALTY [sic] AND SUPPORT TO LABOR OFFICIALS, DANIEL CAMMACK (President) AND GARY CREWS (1st Vice Pesident [sic] Appointee) OF LOCAL 1681. THE ABOVE MENTIONED IS DUE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT, THEY ARE BOTH BEHAVING CONTRARY TO THE PRESCRIBED ETHICS OF EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING UNIT OFFICIALS UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT (PL 95-454). THEY BOTH HAVE VIOLATED OUR PROVIDED RIGHTS UNDER 5 USC [§] 7103(a)(16) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, WE, THE UNDERSIGNED COLLECTIVELY EXECUTE OUR RIGHTS IN PURSUIT OF 5 USC [§] 7111 OF THIS TITLE PETITION TO DECERTIFY THE CURRENT UNION EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MENTION [sic] ABOVE, FROM THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE STATUS AND REQUEST AN ELECTION BE ESTABLISHED BY FLRA SO THAT OUR BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS CAN ELECT NEW EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS WHO WILL UPHOLD THE PRINCIPLES OF THIS STATUS AS THEY ARE ENSURED WITHIN THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978.
IT HAS BECOME OVERLY APPARENT THAT THE UNION PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT DO NOT HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE BARGAINING UNIT IN MIND, VIA THE NUMEROUS IMPROPRIETIES AND DISREGARD FOR THE WELFARE OF ITS DUES PAYING MEMBERS.
THEY HAVE FAILED TO APPRISE THE MEMBERS OF CHANGES THAT AFFECT THEIR EMPLOYMENT NOR SEEK CONSENSUS OF WHAT THE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE DONE ON THEIR BEHALF. ERGO, IT IS OUR CONTENTION AS CONCERNED MEMBERS OF THE WORKFORCE AND UNION THAT MR. CAMMACK AND MR. CREWS, BE REPLACED AND THE TRUSTEESHIP OF THE UNION BE PLACED IN MORE CREDIBLE AND RESPONSIBLE HANDS IMMEDIATELY.
ALL EMPLOYEES MEMBERS ARE WELCOME TO SIGN, WHEATHER [sic] OR NOT THEY ARE UNION MEMBERS, AS PRESCRIBE BY ARTICLE 5 (EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT), SECTION #1
PLEASE PUT AND [sic] X IN ONE OR MORE APPROPRIATE BOXES AS THEY APPLY.
/ / AS PROVIDED BY PL95-454, 5-CFR, CHAPTER #14 (sub. sec. #2422.2 sect. B). WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE PETITIONING FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO CEASE TO BE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRES.
/ / AS PROVIDED BY PL95-454, 5-USC 7111 (a) (B) (2). WHICH STATES, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO REQUEST OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTH. (FLRA), BY A VOTE OF 33% OF THE EMPLOYEE'S DO ALLEGE THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT NO LONGER REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF THE UNIT. AND WE DO REQUEST THE FLRA INVESTIGATE THE PETITION AND SUPERVISE AND CONDUCT AN ELECTION FOR SECRET BALLOT FOR A NEW PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT.
/ / I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS PROCESS AND SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING ________________
AFTER YOU HAVE PUT AN X IN ONE OR MORE OF THE BOXES, AND SIGNED. PLEASE PLACE IN AN ENVELOPE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND ADDRESS IT COURTESY OF . . . .
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
1. Section 2421.16 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provide, in relevant part, that:
"Showing of interest" means . . . employees' signed and dated petitions or cards indicating that they no longer desire to be represented for the purposes of exclusive recognition by the currently recognized or certified labor organization[.]
2. Section 7111(b)(1)(B) of the Statute and section 2422.2(b) of the Regulations require that a decertification petition be accompanied by a showing of interest of not less than thirty percent of the employees in the unit.
3. Section 2422.17(c)(4) provides for review of a Regional Director's decision on the following ground:
That the Regional Director's decision on a substantial factual issue is clearly erroneous and such error prejudicially affects the rights of a party.
4. The full text of this form is set forth in Appendix A to this decision.
5. The full text of this form is set forth in Appendix B to this decision.
6. Section 7135(b) provides, in relevant part, that:
Policies, regulations, and procedures established under and decisions issued under Executive Orders 11491, . . . shall remain in full force and effect until revised or revoked by the President, or unless superseded by specific provisions of this chapter or by regulations or decisions issued pursuant to this chapter.
7. Having found that the signature forms submitted with the petition are unreliable and unacceptable as evidence of interest by unit employees in decertifying the currently recognized exclusive representative, we find it unnecessary to address the issue of whether the Petitioner cured the deficiency regarding the undated signatures by filing an affidavit with the amended petition declaring that the signatures had been collected during a specified period.