Army Communications-Electronics Command, FOP Lodge 48, and AFGE Local 1904 (Authority decision, June 29, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies FOP Lodge 48's application for review, leaving dismissal of its representation petition for an insufficient showing of interest in place. This is a representation petition dismissal. Section 7123(a)(2) excludes an order under § 7112 determining an appropriate unit from direct judicial review; this decision does not determine whether judicial review of this dismissal is available.

Plain-English summary

The Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 48 sought exclusive recognition in a consolidated unit at the Army Communications-Electronics Command in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. A regional director dismissed its petition because the union had not shown sufficient employee interest. FOP asked the Authority to review that ruling. The Authority found no showing that the regional director departed from precedent, clearly erred on a substantial fact, or prejudiced a party's rights. It denied review, so the petition remains dismissed and no election was ordered in this case.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Representation review under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.17.
• Outcome: Application for review denied; petition dismissed for insufficient showing of interest.
• Key point: The application did not establish a compelling reason to revisit the regional director's interest finding.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p899 ]
27:0899(98)RO

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA NO. 98

U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATION-
ELECTRONICS COMMAND
FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY

Activity

and

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
LODGE 48

Petitioner

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1904, AFL-CIO

Intervenor

Case No. 2-RO-70003

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On May 11, 1987, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Federal Lodge 48 (FOP) filed a timely application for review pursuant to section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, seeking to set aside the Regional Director's Decision and order in the above-named case. In his Decision and Order, the Regional Director found that the FOP did not have a sufficient showing of interest for exclusive recognition in a consolidated unit, and he dismissed the FOP's representation petition. In its application for review, FOP contends in essence that compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for granting the application.

Upon consideration of FOP's application for review, we conclude that no compelling reason exists for granting the application. The Regional Director's finding has not been shown to be a departure from precedent, or to have prejudicially affected the rights of any party, or to be clearly erroneous as to a substantial factual issue.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2422.17(f)(3) of our Rules and Regulations, the application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY