United States National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, Agoura Hills, California and Laborers' International Union of North America (Authority decision, July 15, 1994)

FLRA representation decision. This order grants review of disputed election procedures and a challenged ballot, with briefs still to be filed. It does not resolve the election or certify a representative, and no judicial-review period is presented as running from this order under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

A National Park Service representation election at the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area produced a close tally and several challenged ballots. A regional director found that two employees away at training may have been wrongly denied a chance to vote and made the election outcome depend on the remaining ballot count. The union sought review of that finding and a decision excluding another ballot. The Authority granted review of whether the absent employees should have voted and whether the challenged voter was a supervisor of firefighters under the statute. It invited briefs before deciding either issue or the election result.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Firefighter and supervisor definitions under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(10), (17); review procedure under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.17(g).
• Outcome: Review granted; election and ballot questions remain unresolved.
• Key point: The Authority had not yet decided whether training absences affected the vote or whether one voter was eligible.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v49 p1596 ]
49:1596(145)RO

The decision of the Authority follows:

49 FLRA No. 145

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS RECREATION AREA

AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA

(Activity)

and

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF

NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization/Petitioner)

SF-RO-30074

_____

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

July 15, 1994

_____

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by the Petitioner (the Union) under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. A representation election was conducted in which ballots were cast both manually and by mail. Of the 35 valid votes counted, 17 were cast for the Union and 15 were cast against exclusive recognition. The Activity challenged three ballots, which were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. In addition, following the election, the Activity filed an objection to the procedural conduct of the election.

Following an investigation of the objection and challenged ballots, the Acting Regional Director (ARD) issued his Decision and Order on Objection and Determinative Challenged Ballots. With respect to the Activity's objection to the procedural conduct of the election, the ARD sustained the portion of the Activity's objection that alleged that two employees who were absent from the worksite on the day of the election because they were away on training were improperly deprived of the opportunity to vote. With respect to the three challenged ballots, the ARD sustained the challenge to the ballot of one individual; and overruled the challenge to the ballots of the other two individuals and ordered that their ballots be opened and counted and that a revised tally of ballots be issued. The ARD stated that if the revised tally of ballots revealed that the votes of the two employees who were away on training on the day of the election would have been determinative of the outcome of the election, then the election would be set aside and a new election held. The ARD further stated that if the votes of those two employees would not have been determinative of the outcome of the election, the appropriate certification, based on the revised tally of ballots, would be issued.

The Union seeks review of the ARD's decision insofar as the ARD sustained the portion of the Activity's objection to the procedural conduct of the election and sustained the challenge to the ballot of one employee. The Activity did not file an opposition to the application for review.

II. Order

We find that the Union has established that compelling reasons exist for granting the application for review of the ARD's decision and order pursuant to the provisions of section 2422.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. In particular, we grant the application for review as to the following issues: (1) Whether two employees who were absent from the worksite on the day of the election because they were away on training were improperly deprived of the opportunity to vote and, if so, whether the election should be set aside; (2) Whether, noting the definition of "firefighter" under section 7103(a)(17) of the Statute, the individual whose ballot challenge was sustained by the ARD is a supervisor of a unit which includes firefighters within the meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute.

Accordingly, we grant the application for review of the ARD's decision and order. In accordance with section 2422.17(g) of our Rules and Regulations, the parties may, within 10 days after issuance of this Order, submit briefs on the issues raised by the application for review. Briefs should be directed to:

Alicia N. Columna
Director, Case Control Office
Federal Labor
Relations Authority
607 14th Street, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, D.C.
20424-0001

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