---

 43 FLRA NO. 67


                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
                    INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
                       WASHINGTON, D.C.
                              AND
                    INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
                        CHICAGO DISTRICT
                       CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
                            (Agency)

                              and

               NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
                              AND
               NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
                           CHAPTER 10
                (Labor Organization/Petitioner)

                           5-CU-00016

                              ORDER

                         December 27, 1991

     The Agency has filed an application for review of the
Regional Director's Decision and Order in the above-captioned
case. On December 5, 1991, the Authority issued an order
directing the Agency to show cause why its application should not
be dismissed as untimely filed. The Agency filed a timely
response to the Authority's Order. For the reasons set out below,
the Agency'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).

     The Regional Director's Decision and Order in this case is
dated September 25, 1991. Any application for review of
the Decision and Order had to be filed with the Authority no
later than November 25, 1991, to be timely filed.

     The Agency's application for review, dated November 25,
1991, was mailed in an envelope without a postmark (postage was
paid by the Department of the Treasury as shown by a "penalty
mail" label). The Authority received the Agency's application for
review on December 2, 1991. Under Section 2429.21(b) of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations, if no postmark is evident, a
filing is presumed to have been mailed 5 days prior to receipt.
The filing date for the Agency's application is therefore,
presumed to be November 27, 1991. See Veterans Administration,
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Muskogee, Oklahoma, 29 
FLRA  51 (1987).

     The Authority's Regulations provide that a return post
office receipt or other written receipt executed by the party or
person served shall constitute proof of service. 5 C.F.R.
2429.27(b). The Agency's assertion, supported by affidavits and a
certified mail receipt dated by the Agency, that it submitted its
application for review to the Post Office on November 25, 1991,
does not constitute proof of service pursuant to section
2429.27(b) of the Regulations. See U.S. Department of the Army,
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1770, 37
FLRA  877, 879 (1990).

     In its response to the Authority's December 5, 1991 Order to
Show Cause, the Agency states that it did not question the need
for a postmark on the certified mail receipt in its files
because: (1) the receipt form indicates that "Postmark or Date"
may be entered, and "11/25/91" was entered on the form; (2) the
Agency anticipated no mailing problems which would require the
application of the presumed mailing date rule in section
2429.21(b);  1/  (3) "the actual piece of certified mail was
delivered to a local Chicago, IL post office on November 25,
1991"; and (4) the Agency did not realize that certified mail,
when received, would not indicate the date it was "logged in" at
the post office.

     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  307, 309 (1990); and
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Computer and
Telecommunications Command, Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1, 42 FLRA 
1265 (1991). 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 Agency's application for review was not
timely filed, it is dismissed.

For the Authority.

                         Alicia N. Columna
                         Director, Case Control Office

FOOTNOTES

     Footnote */ However, the Agency later states that some degree
of   "Judicial notice" might be taken that, because Thanksgiving
was November 28th, the normal flow of mail between Chicago and
Washington,   D.C., was disrupted.

---