43:0955(75)AR - - Air Force, HQ, OK City Air Logistics Center, Tinker AFB, OK and AFGE, Local 916 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v43 p955



[ v43 p955 ]
43:0955(75)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


43 FLRA No. 75

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS, OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 916

(Union)

0-AR-2175

(43 FLRA 290 (1991))

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

January 10, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before us on a request for reconsideration of 43 FLRA 290 (1991) filed by the Union under section 2429.17 of our Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition to the request. Because the Union fails to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the request.

II. The Decision in 43 FLRA 290

In 43 FLRA 290, we found that a grievance concerning an employee's claim that he was not properly promoted to the WG 10 level was barred under section 7121(d) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint that had been filed earlier by the grievant.(*)

We noted there were differences between the grievance and the EEO complaint in that the grievance argued that the grievant's eligibility for promotion stemmed from his completion of certain training which had qualified him to do WG-10 work, while the EEO complaint appeared to focus on a later injury and consequent limited duty restrictions. However, we found that these differences did not obscure the fact that the same matter was involved in both proceedings: the alleged prohibited personnel practice of failing to promote the grievant to the WG-10 level. Accordingly, we concluded that the EEO complaint and the grievance concerned the same matter.

As the formal EEO complaint was filed prior to the grievance, we found that the conditions of section 7121(d) had been met and the Arbitrator was, therefore, precluded under section 7121(d) of the Statute from resolving the grievance submitted to him. Accordingly, we set aside the Arbitrator's award finding that the Agency violated the parties' agreement by failing to promote the grievant and directing the Agency to promote the grievant to WG-10 and to pay him backpay.

III. The Union's Request for Reconsideration

The Union maintains that the Authority's decision is "deficient" because it is "contrary" to section 6.01 of the parties' agreement, which provides that the agreement's grievance procedure is the exclusive procedure for the resolution of matters involving, among other things, working conditions or the interpretation of the agreement itself. Request for Reconsideration at 1. The Union argues that training, promotion and fair treatment are grievable matters covered by the parties' agreement. The Union asserts that the grievance before the Arbitrator involved the provisions of the Agency's vocational technical training program for employees, while the grievant's EEO complaint concerned a disability matter. The Union maintains, therefore, that the Authority "ignored" the parties' agreement and that the Authority's decision is therefore "arbitrary and capricious." Id. at 2.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of our 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 of 43 FLRA 290.

The arguments presented by the Union in support of its request for reconsideration constitute nothing more than disagreement with our decision in 43 FLRA 290 and are an attempt to relitigate the merits of the case. As such, these arguments do not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of our decision, and we will deny the request. See, for example, U.S. Department of the Army, New Cumberland Army Depot, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2004, 40 FLRA 1032 (1991).