42:1265(86)RA - U.S. NAVY, NAVAL COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMAND HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. and AFGE LOCAL 1 -- 1991 FLRAdec RA

 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