42:1105(76)AR - - HHS, SSA, Area II, Philadelphia Region and AFGE Local 1923 - - 1991 FLRAdec AR - - v42 p1105
[ v42 p1105 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
42 FLRA No. 76
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on a motion filed by the Agency seeking reconsideration of an Authority Order dated August 23, 1991, dismissing the Agency's exceptions to an arbitration award because the exceptions did not include a proper statement of service. The Union filed an opposition to the Agency's motion for reconsideration.
For the following reasons, we conclude that the Agency has not established that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of the Authority's Order. Accordingly, we will deny the motion for reconsideration.
In accordance with the Authority's Rules and Regulations, any document filed with the Authority must be served on "all counsel of record or other designated representative(s) of parties[.]" 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27(a). Service must be made by certified mail or in person. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27(b). A signed and dated statement of service which shows that proper service has been made must be submitted with all documents which are filed with the Authority. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27(c).
By Order dated July 25, 1991, the Authority notified the Agency that its exceptions were deficient because the statement of service did not include: (1) the name and address of the Arbitrator; and (2) a statement showing that the counsel of record or other designated Union representative(s) had been properly served. The Agency was also notified that failure to document proper service on all parties and to provide the name and address of the Arbitrator not later than August 5, 1991, may result in the dismissal of the exceptions.
Noting that the Agency had not responded to the Authority's Order of July 25, 1991, the Authority dismissed the Agency's exceptions by Order dated August 23, 1991.
III. The Agency's Motion for Reconsideration
The Agency contends that, although its July 15, 1991, submission to the Authority did not contain either the address of the Arbitrator or the address of the Union's representative, actual service on the parties was effected on that date. The Agency argues that both the Arbitrator's address and the Union representative's address "are known to the Authority and are contained in its computerized data base." Motion for Reconsideration at 2. The Agency also asserts that the Authority, utilizing its database, served the dismissal order by certified mail, return receipt requested, on the Union representative.
The Agency further argues that it did not timely respond to the Authority's Order requesting that deficiencies in the exceptions be corrected because clerical misrouting in the Agency's internal mail system prevented a timely response to the Order. The Agency states that it "did not become aware of t