[ v57 p274 ]
57 FLRA No. 57
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT
SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL 1276, AFL-CIO
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
June 20, 2001
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman; Donald S. Wasserman and Carol Waller Pope, Members
Intervenor Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 1276, AFL-CIO filed an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order denying its objections to an election. The Petitioner and Activity each filed an opposition to the application for review. [n1]
The application is denied because the Intervenor has failed to demonstrate that review is warranted under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.31(c)(3), which provides that the Authority may grant an application for review when the application demonstrates that:
There is a genuine issue over whether the Regional Director has:
(i) Failed to apply established law;
(ii) Committed a prejudicial procedural error;
(iii) Committed a clear and prejudicial error concerning a substantial factual matter. [ v57 p275 ]
The Intervenor claims that review is warranted on the grounds that the Regional Director: (1) erred by not voiding an election agreement and conducting a pre-election hearing; (2) erred by not conducting a post-election hearing; and (3) failed to apply established law in dismissing objections to the conduct of the Activity. We find that the record supports the Regional Director's factual findings and that the Regional Director correctly applied established law. [n2]
Accordingly, we conclude that the Intervenor has not demonstrated that there is a genuine issue warranting review. In view of this conclusion, we deny the application for review.
Footnote # 1 for 57 FLRA No. 57
The Petitioner's opposition was not timely filed and, as a result, has not been considered.
Footnote # 2 for 57 FLRA No. 57
Under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5 of the Authority's Regulations, we will not consider issues that could have been, but were not, raised before the Regional Director. The record indicates that the Intervenor did not raise before the Regional Director its claims regarding a pre-election hearing concerning the election agreement. Therefore, we have not considered those claims on the merits.