40:0945(77)AR - - Army Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia and NAGE Local R4-6 - - 1991 FLRAdec AR - - v40 p945



[ v40 p945 ]
40:0945(77)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


40 FLRA No. 77

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA

(Agency)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R4-6

(Union)

0-AR-2056

(40 FLRA No. 28 (1991))

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

May 24, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on the Union's motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in 40 FLRA No. 28 (1991). The Agency did not file an opposition to the request. Because the Union fails to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist which would warrant reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the motion.

II. The Decision in 40 FLRA No. 28

In 40 FLRA No. 28, we denied the Union's exception to the Arbitrator's supplemental award denying the Union's request for a new award of attorney fees. In her original award, the Arbitrator had awarded attorney fees. However, we concluded in U.S. Department of the Army, Army Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia and National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-6, 38 FLRA 186 (1990), request for clarification denied, 40 FLRA No. 10 (1991), that the award of attorney fees was contrary to the Back Pay Act, and we modified the award to strike the provision for attorney fees.

III. The Union's Motion for Reconsideration

The Union contends that there are extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Union maintains that the Union prevailed in the arbitration and reserved its right to attorney fees. The Union asserts that it is the "clear intent of the Back Pay Act . . . to permit employees suffering from unjustified actions to receive backpay and attorney fees" and that the "FLRA's decision denying a fee award frustrates [that] clear intent[.]" Motion for Reconsideration at 1.

The Union also argues that the Authority "is placing an unfair burden on the Union to be responsible for educating and providing legal advice to arbitrators" and that nonetheless the Union intended "to do just what the Authority is advocating, but the [A]rbitrator proceeded to issue her decision prior to the Union's request for attorney fees." Id. at 2.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of section 2429.17 to warrant reconsideration of our decision in 40 FLRA No. 28.

The Union's arguments constitute nothing more than disagreement with and an attempt to relitigate the merits of our decision in 40 FLRA No. 28 and do not establish the extraordinary circumstances necessary for reconsideration. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Wichita, Kansas and American Federat