28:0736(91)AR - AFGE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SSA FIELD OPERATIONS VS
[ v28 p736 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA NO. 91 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FIELD OPERATIONS LOCALS, AFL-CIO Union and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Case No. 0-AR-1288 (26 FLRA No. 82)
This matter is before the Authority on a request filed by the Union seeking clarification of our decision of April 28, 1987. In that decision, we denied the Agency's exceptions to the Arbitrator's award interpreting the parties' Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) concerning the monitoring of teleservice center (TSC) employee phone calls. We held that the award was not based on a nonfact or contrary to section 7106(a) of the Statute as the Agency alleged. In our decision, we noted that "(i)t is clear from the record that both the Union and the Agency understood that a sample period could vary in each center and could be as long or as short as appropriate and that the sample period in effect at the time of the MOA at the TSCs represented by the Union was the entire year." 26 FLRA No. 82, slip op. at 3-4 (citations omitted and emphasis added).
The Union requests clarification of the underlined portion of our decision. The union argues that the Authority's intent in using the word "appropriate" is unclear and that the sample period in effect at each TSC at the time the MOA was entered into was not the entire year. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's request in which it argues that the Authority's decision is clear on its face and that the request is an attempt to circumvent the time limits for filing a request for reconsideration and an attempt to relitigate issues already addressed by the Authority.
In our decision we specifically concluded, based on the record, that the Union and the Agency understood that the sample period at each TSC could vary in each center and could be as long or as short as appropriate, that is, whatever period is consistent with law, rule or regulation and the parties' collective bargaining agreement. We also concluded, contrary to the Union's argument, that the sample period in effect at the time of the MOA was the entire year.
We hold that the Union's request for clarification must be denied. Without passing upon whether the Authority's Rules and Regulations provide for the filing of such requests, we find that clarification is not warranted in this case.
Accordingly, since our decision is clear, the Union's request for clarification is denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 27, 1987.