31:0913(70)CA - VA, Washington, DC and VA Medical Center, Battle Creek, MI and AFGE Local 1629 -- 1988 FLRAdec CA
[ v31 p913 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
31 FLRA No. 70 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1629, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case No. 5-CA-70091 (30 FLRA 937)
This case is before us on the Respondent's motion for reconsideration of our January 21, 1988, decision in the above-cited case.
In our decision, we adopted the Administrative Law Judge's findings that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by its refusal to furnish the names and home addresses of the Medical Center employees.
In its motion for reconsideration, the Respondent requests that the Authority reconsider its decision in this matter based on the following factors: (1) the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in The United States Department of Agriculture and the Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2579 (Farmers Home) (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 1988) petitions for rehearing filed; and (2) the testimony of Frederic Jones, rejected by the Judge as irrelevant, in which he strongly objected to the release of his address to the Charging Party because he considered it to be an invasion of his privacy. [PAGE]
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party who can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of a final decision or order of the Authority. We conclude that the Respondent has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17.
The arguments presented by the Respondent in support of its request rely on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Respondent asserts that the decision and the testimony of Frederic Jones requires the Authority to now reach a different result in this case. We find no basis in the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsidering our decision in this case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld our decision that an Agency must provide the names and home addresses o