United States Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas (Activity) and United States Department of the Air Force, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas (Activity/Petitioner) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Incumbent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1367, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Incumbent) (Authority decision, April 23, 2002)

Kelly and Lackland Air Force Bases (FLRA DA-RP-01-0005): Unit-clarification review and stay denied

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
DA-RP-01-0005
Decided
April 23, 2002
Outcome
Upheld
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-09-29
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 2002, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2002
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority determining an appropriate bargaining unit under 5 U.S.C. § 7112. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) excludes such unit determinations under § 7123(a)(2).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 1617 sought review of a regional director’s decision granting Lackland Air Force Base’s unit-clarification petition for the unit represented by Local 1367. It alleged factual errors and misapplication of successorship criteria. The Authority found that the record supported the factual findings and that the union had not shown a failure to apply established law. It denied review and also denied a stay because the union supplied no supporting arguments. The short order does not detail the underlying unit changes.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: 5 C.F.R. § 2422.31(c).
  • Outcome: Application for review and stay request denied.
  • Key point: Unit-clarification review requires a demonstrated qualifying legal, procedural, or substantial factual error.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v57 p749 ]

57 FLRA No. 162

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND

KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS

(Activity)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS

(Activity/Petitioner)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization/Incumbent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1367, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization/Incumbent)

DA-RP-01-0005

_____

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

April 23, 2002

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and

Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 1617, filed an application for review and a request for a stay of the Regional Director's (RD's) Decision and Order granting the Department of the Air Force, Lackland Air Force Base's (Lackland AFB's) petition for clarification of the bargaining unit exclusively represented by AFGE, Local 1367. Lackland AFB filed an opposition to AFGE, Local 1617's application.

AFGE, Local 1617 provides no arguments to explain why a stay of the RD's Decision and Order is warranted. As such, we deny the request for a stay. Further, the application is denied because AFGE, Local 1617 has failed to demonstrate that review is warranted under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.31(c), which provides that the Authority may grant an application for review when the application demonstrates that:

(3) 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.

AFGE, Local 1617 claims that review is warranted on the grounds that the RD made several factual errors and that the RD misapplied the criteria for successorship. However, we find that the record supports the RD's factual findings, and that the Union has not demonstrated that the RD misapplied established law.

Accordingly, we conclude that AFGE, Local 1617 has not demonstrated that there is a genuine issue warranting review. In view of this conclusion, we deny the application for review of the RD's Decision and Order.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Try Ezel Pro free for 7 days. Cancel anytime before the trial ends and you pay nothing.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace