24:0176(23)CU - Treasury, Bureau of the Mint, Mint, Denver, CO and AFGE Local 695 -- 1986 FLRAdec RP
[ v24 p176 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
24 FLRA No. 23 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF THE MINT U.S. MINT DENVER, COLORADO Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 695 Petitioner Case No. 7-CU-60009 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW On October 20, 1986, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 695 (AFGE) 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 on Petition for Clarification of Unit in the above-named case. In its application for review, AFGE contends that compelling reasons exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for granting the application. Upon consideration of AFGE's application for review, including all arguments in support thereof, the Authority concludes that no compelling reason exists for granting the application. Rather, the application in essence expresses mere disagreement with the Regional Director's findings, which are based on precedent, and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous or to have prejudicially affected the right of any party. Accordingly, pursuant to section 2422.17(f)(3) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order on Petition for Clarification of Unit is denied. Issued, Washington, D.C. November 21, 1986. /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member /s/ Jean McKee, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION This matter is before the Authority because of the Agency's request for reconsideration and "Motion to Amend" the Authority's Decision and Order on Negotiability Issues of August 15, 1986, in the above-entitled matter. Specifically, the Agency seeks reconsideration of the Authority's order as to Provisions 1 and 3. The Union filed an opposition. In its decision, the Authority found negotiable Provisions 1 and 3 of the parties' local supplemental agreement covering assignments and hours which had been disapproved by the Agency under section 7114(c) of the Statute. Consequently, the Authority ordered the Agency to rescind its disapproval of these provisions. The Authority based its determinations that Provisions 1 and 3 were negotiable on the Union's clear, unequivocal statements of intent in the petition for review concerning each provision, which statements were found to be consistent with the language of each provision. Although the Agency acknowledged that in view of the Union's statements of intent its disapproval of the two provisions may be moot the Agency continued to maintain that the provisions were nonnegotiable. As to the Agency's continued claims of nonnegotiability the Authority stated in a footnote that since the Union's clear, unequivocal statements of intent concerning the provisions showed that the Agency's claims of nonnegotiability were baseless, "any disagreement over these provisions should have been resolved bilaterally." Thus, the Authority urged the Agency "to act in a more positive manner, so as not to burden the Union and the Authority with the resolution of unnecessary disputes." The Agency does not challenge the Authority's holding that Provision 1 and 3 are negotiable. Instead, it contends, first, that the Authority committed an error in finding that the Agency had "disapproved" the provisions under section 7114(c) of the Statute. Rather, the Agency states that because each of the provisions was subject to a negotiable as well as a nonnegotiable interpretation, it merely sought to clarify the meaning of the two provisions by holding them negotiable so long as the Union accepted the Agency's interpretation of their meaning. Thus, the Agency requests the Authority to correct its order requiring the Agency to rescind its disapproval of these provisions because "so interpreted, the proposals were never disapproved." Second, the Agency states that if it is forced to stop its practice of providing alternative or conditional approvals when a contract provision is subject to both negotiable and nonnegotiable interpretations because of the comments such as these contained in the Authority's footnote, "the result will clearly be to produce more, not fewer appeals." Thus, the Agency further requests that the Authority either delete or alter the footnote in question. Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides that a party which can establish "extraordinary circumstances" may request reconsideration of an Authority decision. We conclude that the Agency has not established such "extraordinary circumstances." Specifically, we view the Agency's arguments as simply disagreeing with the Authority's interpretation of the record and legal determinations that the Agency disapproved the two provisions in question. Moreover, we reject the Agency's claim that the Authority's footnote urging the Agency to act in a positive manner so as to further the bilateral resolution of negotiability issues must increase rather than decrease the number of negotiability appeals. In our view, this request for reconsideration confirms our observations that the Agency in this case should have resolved without our involvement its questions regarding the meaning of language which was negotiated and agreed to by the parties at a local level within the Agency. Consequently, we conclude that the Agency has failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances and deny its request for reconsideration.