Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region East and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2004 and Letterkenny Army Depot (Authority decision, August 14, 1992)

FLRA representation decision. This order dismisses an application for review of a regional director's unit clarification decision as untimely. It ends this application before the Authority and leaves the regional decision undisturbed. Section 7123(a)(2) of title 5 excludes orders involving an appropriate-unit determination from the judicial-review filing provision in § 7123(a); this banner does not present a 60-day judicial-review period as running from this order.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2004 sought review of a regional director's decision in a unit clarification case involving the Defense Distribution Region East and Letterkenny Army Depot. The Authority had first dismissed the application after receiving no response to a show-cause order, then rescinded that dismissal when it received the union's timely response. The regional decision was issued April 30, 1992, and the deadline to apply for review was June 29. The union's application was postmarked June 30, and it could not provide evidence of later service that would change the deadline. Because the filing limit could not be waived or extended, the Authority dismissed the application as untimely.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 C.F.R. §§ 2422.17(a) and 2429.23(d).
• Outcome: Application for review dismissed as untimely; the regional director's decision remains in place.
• Key point: The Authority could not extend or waive the deadline for seeking review of the regional director's decision.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v45 p921 ]

45:0921(89)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

45 FLRA No. 89

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION REGION EAST

(Activity/Petitioner)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2004

(Labor Organization)

and

LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT

(Intervenor)

BP-CU-20001

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

August 14, 1992

On August 10, 1992, the Authority issued an Order dismissing the Labor Organization's application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in the above-captioned case for failure to respond to the Authority's July 14, 1992, Order directing the Labor Organization to show cause why its application for review should not be dismissed as untimely. Subsequent to issuance of the August 10 Order, the Authority received the Union's timely response to its July 14 Order. Therefore, The Authority's August 10 Order is rescinded. However, for the reasons set out below, the Union's application for review 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. Id. and 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(d).

The Regional Director issued his Decision and Order on April 30, 1992. Any application for review of the Decision and Order had to be either postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or received in person at the Authority no later than June 29, 1992, in order to be considered timely. The Labor Organization's application for review was filed (postmarked) on June 30, 1992.

The Authority's July 14, 1992, Order directed the Labor Organization to show cause why its application for review should not be dismissed as untimely filed. To comply with the July 14 Order, the Labor Organization was directed to provide proof that the Regional Director's decision was served later than April 30, 1992. The July 14 Order stated that the Labor Organization could submit a copy of the envelope in which the Regional Director's decision was mailed and on which the postmark is evident.

In response to the Authority's July 14 Order, the Labor Organization states that it is "unable to provide the required copy of the envelope in which the postmark is evident."

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 Labor Organization's application for review was not timely filed, it is dismissed.

For the Authority.

Alicia N. Columna

Director, Case Control Office

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)