43:1008(84)NG - - NAGE and VA, Washington, DC - - 1992 FLRAdec NG - - v43 p1008
[ v43 p1008 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
43 FLRA No. 84
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
(43 FLRA 414 (1991))
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND STAY
January 17, 1992
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before us on the Agency's motions for reconsideration and stay of the Authority's decision concerning Proposal 1 in 43 FLRA 414 (1991). The Union did not file an opposition to the motions. Because the Agency fails to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the Agency's motions.
II. The Authority's Decision in 43 FLRA 414
In 43 FLRA 414, we concluded that Proposal 1 was negotiable. The proposal provided as follows:
Child Care Article
Twenty[-]four hour a day child care will be available at each facility for unit employee's [sic] children. The fee for child care will be comparable to fees charged at Department of Defense Facilities in the area.
We noted that 38 U.S.C. § 7809(a)(1), formerly 38 U.S.C. § 4209(a)(1),(1) required that the Agency head provide for the operation of child care centers at the Agency's facilities.(2) We found that the statute did not specify that each facility will have a child care center or provide the hours of operation of such centers. Because these matters are not specifically provided for by Federal statute, within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14)(C) of the Statute, we concluded that Proposal 1 concerned conditions of employment.
We also noted that where law or applicable regulation vests an agency with exclusive authority or unfettered discretion over a matter, the agency's discretion is not subject to negotiation. We found, however, no support in the plain wording of 38 U.S.C. § 7808, or its legislative history for concluding that the Agency's discretion over the operation of child care centers is not subject to collective bargaining.(3)
Finally, we found that there was nothing in the wording of Proposal 1 or in the record which established that child care fees could not be established that satisfied the requirements of both 38 U.S.C. § 7809(b) and the proposal.(4) Accordingly, as no other bases for finding Proposal 1 were argued or apparent to us, we concluded that the proposal was negotiable.
III. The Agency's Motions
The Agency contends that the Authority disregarded the language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 7808 and 7809 in concluding that the operation of Agency child care centers is not specifically provided for by law and in concluding that the Agency has failed to establish that the Agency has exclusive control over all matters relating to child care operations. The Agency also contends that the Authority relied on "unsupported . . . assumptions" in finding that the portion of Proposal 1 requiring that Agency child care fees be comparable to fees charged at Department of Defense facilities in the area was not inconsistent with 38 U.S.C. § 7809(b). Motion for Reconsideration at 3. The Agency also requests that the decision in 43 FLRA 414 be stayed.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
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. The Agency fails to establish "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17.
The arguments presented by the Agency in support of its motion for reconsideration constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision in 43 FLRA 414 and 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 motions for reconsideration and stay.
The Agency's motions for reconsideration and stay are denied.