42:0220(17)CU - - HUD, HQ and AFGE Local 476 - - 1991 FLRAdec RP - - v42 p220



[ v42 p220 ]
42:0220(17)CU
The decision of the Authority follows:


42 FLRA No. 17

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

HEADQUARTERS

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 476

(Union/Petitioner)

3-CU-00028

(41 FLRA 1226 (1991))

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

September 20, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on a request filed by the Union for reconsideration of our Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Union's Application for Review in 41 FLRA 1226. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's request.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of our Order. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's request.

II. The Order in 41 FLRA 1226

In 41 FLRA 1226, the Authority concluded, as relevant here,(*) that three employees could not be included in the Union's existing bargaining unit because the employees did not share a clear and identifiable community of interest with unit employees. The employees, who encumber Special Assistant positions, were appointed pursuant to Schedule C hiring authority granted the Agency by the Office of Personnel Management. In concluding that these employees could not be included in the existing unit, the Authority noted: (1) the differences in fundamental working conditions between Schedule C employees and other employees; (2) the fact that the work of the Schedule C employees is "inherently 'policy-determining' or based on 'close and confidential working relationship[s]' with key political appointees . . ."; and (3) the Regional Director's findings that the three employees "are assigned and perform work based on their Schedule C status[.]" Id. at 1239 (citation omitted).

III. The Union's Request for Reconsideration

The Union argues that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of the Authority's Order because "conclusions of the Regional Director, relied upon by the Authority in its decision, are not supported by, and in fact are inconsistent with, the record in this case." Request at 1-2. In particular, the Union asserts that the Regional Director's findings that the three employees are assigned and perform work based on their Schedule C status are not supported by the record. According to the Union, "there is no relations [sic] between these employees' work assignments and their status as Schedule C employees." Id. at 7.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of a decision of the Authority.

We conclude that the Union has not established such extraordinary circumstances. Instead, the Union's request for reconsideration constitutes mere disagreement with the Regional Director's findings and the Authority's findings and conclusions based thereon. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's request.

V. Order

The Union's request for reconsi