DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
The Petitioner labor organization seeks to amend the December 19, 2002 certification for the Employing Office’s Capitol Facilities Branch to substitute Teamsters Local 639 for Teamsters Local 246 as the certified exclusive bargaining representative. The Petitioner asserts that Local 246 merged with Local 639.
The Employing Office filed “Objections to Petition for Amendment to Certification of Representative,” and contends that (1) procedurally the Office’s Executive Director, or his designee, lack authority to investigate the petition; and (2) substantively the petition should be denied.
We have determined, for the reasons stated below, that the Employer’s procedural argument lacks merit. We, therefore, direct the Executive Director, or his designee, to investigate the issues arising from the petition. Absent a consensual resolution or petition withdrawal, the Board will decide the merits issue following the completion of the aforementioned investigation.
II. PARTIES’ POSITIONS
The Employing Office interprets Section 220(c) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”), 2 U.S.C. §1351(c), to authorize only the Board, or the Office’s General Counsel, by Board direction, to investigate representation-related petitions encompassed by 5 U.S.C. §7511. The Employing Office submits that Section 220(c), in requiring that any petition or submission be submitted to the Board, but permitting the Board to direct that the General Counsel carry out the Board’s investigative authorities under that paragraph, “limited the Board’s authority to delegate its investigative responsibilities, and the Board may delegate those responsibilities only to the General Counsel.” Accordingly, the Employing Office argues that the Office’s promulgated regulation (§2422.30: 142 Cong. Rec. S11642-01[Senate Approval, September 28, 1996]; 142 Cong. Rec. H9898-02 [House Approval, August 2, 1996] assigning this representation investigation function to the Executive Director, conflicts with the CAA and therefore is “unenforceable and cannot stand.”1
The petitioner expressed no position on this procedural issue and confined its response to the merits of its amendment to certification petition.
