U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Computer and Telecommunications Command Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1 (Authority decision, October 30, 1991)

Final FLRA representation decision. This order ends the application for Authority review of a regional director's representation decision and leaves that decision undisturbed. It does not decide the representation merits. Section 7123(a)(2) of title 5 excludes Authority orders involving an appropriate-unit determination from the general 60-day judicial-review provision; this order does not state a judicial-review deadline.

Plain-English summary

A Navy union sought review of a regional director's representation decision. It mailed the application to the Authority's Washington Regional Office, which received it on the October 7 deadline and forwarded it to the proper Docket Room the next day. The Authority's rules treated the application as filed when the Docket Room received it on October 8. Because the filing period could not be extended or waived, the Authority dismissed the application as one day late. It did not address the regional director's decision on its merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Representation review filing rule at 5 C.F.R. § 2422.17(a).
• Outcome: Union application for review dismissed as untimely.
• Key point: Sending a review application to a regional office did not satisfy the filing deadline for receipt in the Authority's Docket Room.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v42 p1265 ]

42:1265(86)RA

The decision of the Authority follows:

42 FLRA NO. 86

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMAND HEADQUARTERS WASHINGTON, D.C. (Activity/Petitioner)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 1 (Labor Organization)

3-RA-00002

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The Labor Organization (Union) has filed an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in the above-captioned case. On October 11, 1991, the Authority issued an Order directing the Union to show cause why its application should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The Union filed a timely response to the Authority's Order. For the reasons set out below, the Union's application is untimely and must be dismissed.

The Authority's Regulations provide that "(a) party may file an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order with the Authority within sixty (60) days of the date of such action." 5 C.F.R. 2422.17(a). The time limit for filing an application for review may not be extended or waived. 5 C.F.R. 2422.17(a) and 2429.23(d). Any document filed with the Authority must be filed in the Authority's Docket Room in Washington, D.C. 5 C.F.R. 2429.24(a). See also The Association of Civilian Technicians and tthe Division of Military and Naval Affairs, the State of New York, 32 FLRA 96 (1988). An application for review may not be filed in a Regional Office. See U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Marine Operations and District No. 1-MEBA/NMU, 33 FLRA 864 (1989). [PAGE]

The Regional Director's Decision and Order in this case is dated August 7, 1991. Any application for review of the Decision and Order had to be filed with the Authority no later than October 7, 1991, to be timely filed.

The Union mailed its application for review to the Authority's Washington Regional Office. The Regional Office received the Union's application on October 7, 1991, and forwarded the application to the Authority's Docket Room the next day. Section 2429.21(b) of the Authority's Regulations provides that "(i)f the filing is by personal delivery, it shall be considered filed on the date it is received by the Authority...." Accordingly, the Union's application for review was considered filed on October 8, 1991, the date the application was received in the Authority's Docket Room.

In its response to the Authority's October 11, 1991 Order to Show Cause, the Union states that this is the only appeal it has filed with the Authority in twenty years, that it did not receive page 7 of the Regional Director's decision and that the Regional Office was the only address it had for the Authority.

Although the circumstances of this case are regrettable, parties filing documents with the Authority are responsible for being knowledgeable of the statutory and regulatory filing requirements. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 476, 34 FLRA 309. In addition, as stated above, the time limit for filing an application for review may not be extended or waived by the Authority. 5 C.F.R. 2422.17(a) and 2429.23(d).

Accordingly, as the Union's application for review was not timely filed, it is dismissed.

For the Authority.

Alicia N. Columna
Director, Case Control Office