---

 15 FLRA No. 44
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
 LETTERMAN ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
 NUTRITION CARE DIVISION
 PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 WILLIE D. HARRIS
 An Individual/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF
 AMERICA, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization/Intervenor
 
                                            Case No. 9-DR-40001
 
                   ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
 
    On May 8, 1984, the National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO
 (Intervenor), filed a timely application for review, pursuant to section
 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, seeking to set
 aside the Regional Director's Decision and Order in the above-named
 case.  In support thereof, the Intervenor contends that compelling
 reasons within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's
 Rules and Regulations exist for granting its application.  /1/
 
    Upon consideration of the Intervenor's application for review,
 including all arguments in support thereof, the Authority concludes that
 no compelling reasons exist for granting the application.  Rather, the
 application expresses mere disagreement with the Regional Director's
 findings which have not been shown to be clearly erroneous.
 
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2422.17(f)(3) of the Authority's
 Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the application for review of
 the Regional Director's Decision and Order be, and it hereby is, denied.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., July 2, 1984
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Section 2422.17(c) provides:
 
    (c) The Authority may grant an application for review only where it
 appears that compelling reasons exist therefor.  Accordingly, an
 application for review may be granted only one or more of the following
 grounds:
 
    (1) That a substantial question of law or policy is raised because of
 (i) the absence of, or (ii) a departure from, Authority precedent;
 
    (2) That there are extraordinary circumstances warranting
 reconsideration of an Authority policy;
 
    (3) That the conduct of the hearing held or any ruling made in
 connection with the proceeding has resulted in prejudicial error;  or
 
    (4) That the Regional Director's decision on a substantial factual
 issue is clearly erroneous and such error prejudicially affects the
 rights of a party. 
 
 
 

---