32:0820(121)AR - - FAA, Atlantic City, NJ and NFFE Local 1340 - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v32 p820
[ v32 p820 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
32 FLRA No. 121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY
LOCAL 1340, NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Case No. 0-AR-1472
(32 FLRA 426)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on a request filed by the Union seeking reconsideration of the Authority's decision of June 20, 1988. We deny the request.
In our decision, we concluded that the Union failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award was deficient on any of the grounds for review set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. We found that the Agency had no authority to grant the grievants accelerated promotions under 5 C.F.R. § 300.603(a)(1) and (4) without a training agreement or specific approval from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). We upheld the Arbitrator's finding that these regulations were binding on the Agency and the Arbitrator. We also noted the Arbitrator's finding that OPM has the authority to interpret the cited regulations. Finally, we concluded that the Arbitrator did not err in finding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was not available in this case.
II. The Union's Request
In its request for reconsideration, the Union reasserts the substance of the arguments presented in its exceptions. Specifically, the Union requests that the Authority determine (1) whether the Arbitrator may reverse OPM's decision regarding the application of 5 C.F.R. § 300.603(a)(4) in this case and (2) whether the amount of harm suffered by the grievants prevents the Arbitrator from applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
We conclude that the Union's request provides no basis on which to grant reconsideration. Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to move for reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. Here, however, the Union has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17. In fact, the Union states that the issues presented in its request for reconsideration were presented in its exceptions. Thus, we find that the arguments presented by the Union in support of its motion constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision and an attempt to relitigate the merits of this case.
The request for reconsideration is denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C.,