Florida National Guard, St. Augustine, Florida and National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-107 (Authority decision, February 13, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies review of the regional director's dismissal of a certification amendment petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

NAGE Local R5-107 sought to change the name on a Florida National Guard representation certification after a merger of local unions. The regional director dismissed the petition because the union had not followed procedures intended to show that the change reflected members' wishes. The union argued that those procedures applied only to affiliation changes and lacked published Authority precedent for mergers. The Authority found no compelling reason for review. It held that the procedures could also apply to mergers and denied the union's application, leaving the dismissal in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Review of a certification amendment ruling under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.17.
• Outcome: Regional Director's dismissal affirmed; application for review denied.
• Key point: Procedures protecting members' choice may apply to a merger of locals as well as a change in affiliation.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v25 p728 ]

25:0728(60)AC

The decision of the Authority follows:

25 FLRA No. 60

FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA
Activity

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R5-107, SEIU,AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. 4-AC-60011

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on an application filed by the Union under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for review of the Regional Director's decision and order on the Union's petition for amendment of certification.

II. Regional Director's Decision

The Union's petition sought to amend the certification issued in Case No. 42-1244 to reflect a change in the name of the representative from National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-120 to National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-107. The Regional Director dismissed the Union's petition. She determined that in order to assure that a petition for amendment of certification based on a merger of locals accurately reflects the desires of the membership, certain procedures must be followed. The procedures that she set forth were based on a decision issued under E.O. 11491: Veterans Administration Hospital, Montrose, New York, 4 A/SLMR 858 (1974), review denied, 3 FLRC 259 (1975). She also cited in support of the procedures she set forth the unpublished decision of the Authority in U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command, Case No. 2-AC-1 (July 30, 1980).

III. Application for Review

In its application the Union contends that compelling reasons exist within the meaning of the Authority's Rules for granting the application. Specifically, the Union contends under section 2422.17(c)(1) that a substantial question of law or policy is raised because of an absence of Authority precedent for the Regional Director's decision. The Union argues that a substantial question of law or policy is raised for two reasons. The Union first argues that the procedures which were set forth in VA Hospital, Montrose apply only to a change in affiliation; they do not apply to a merger of two local unions of the same national union. Secondly, the Union argues that there is no published precedent of the Authority supporting the Regional Director's decision.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

We conclude that no substantial question of law or policy has been raised and that consequently no compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) for granting the Union's application for review. In particular, we conclude that no substantial question of law or policy is raised by the Regional Director's application to the Union's petition of procedures that originally had been applied to a change in affiliation. The unpublished decision of the Authority in U.S. Army Research and Development Command, Case No. 2-AC-1 (July 30, 1980), supports the application of such procedures to a merger of locals of the same national union. Moreover, the private-sector practice is to apply generally the same procedures to both mergers and affiliation changes. The National Labor Relations Board has generally applied, with court approval, for example, NLRB v. Commercial Letter, Inc., 496 F.2d 35 (8th Cir. 1974), the same procedures to mergers as it has applied to changes in affiliation, for example, F. W. Woolworth Co., 268 NLRB 805, 806 (1984).

We likewise conclued that no substantial question of law or policy is raised by reason of the precedent cited by the Regional Director. The fact that U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command was not a published decision does not make the Regional Director's decision lack precedent. Moreover, with respect to VA Hospital, Montrose, we note that under section 7135(b) of the Statute, such decision remains in full force and effect because it has not been revised or superseded by decisions issued pursuant to the Statute.

V. Order

The application for review of the Regional Director's decision and order on the Union's petition for amendment of certification is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., February 13, 1987. Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman Henry B. Frazier III, Member Jean McKee, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY