[ v45 p921 ]
45:0921(89)CU
The decision of the Authority follows:
45 FLRA No. 89
On August 10, 1992, the Authority issued an Order dismissing the Labor Organization's application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in the above-captioned case for failure to respond to the Authority's July 14, 1992, Order directing the Labor Organization to show cause why its application for review should not be dismissed as untimely. Subsequent to issuance of the August 10 Order, the Authority received the Union's timely response to its July 14 Order. Therefore, The Authority's August 10 Order is rescinded. However, for the reasons set out below, the Union's application for review 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. Id. and 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(d).
The Regional Director issued his Decision and Order on April 30, 1992. Any application for review of the Decision and Order had to be either postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or received in person at the Authority no later than June 29, 1992, in order to be considered timely. The Labor Organization's application for review was filed (postmarked) on June 30, 1992.
The Authority's July 14, 1992, Order directed the Labor Organization to show cause why its application for review should not be dismissed as untimely filed. To comply with the July 14 Order, the Labor Organization was directed to provide proof that the Regional Director's decision was served later than April 30, 1992. The July 14 Order stated that the Labor Organization could submit a copy of the envelope in which the Regional Director's decision was mailed and on which the postmark is evident.
In response to the Authority's July 14 Order, the Labor Organization states that it is "unable to provide the required copy of the envelope in which the postmark is evident."
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 Labor Organization's application for review was not timely filed, it is dismissed.
For the Authority.
Alicia N. Columna
Director, Case Control Office
FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)