43:1276(104)NG - - NAGE Local R14-89 and HQ, Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, TX - - 1992 FLRAdec NG - - v43 p1276
[ v43 p1276 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
43 FLRA No. 104
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, ARMY AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY CENTER
AND FORT BLISS
FORT BLISS, TEXAS
(43 FLRA 267 (1991))
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
January 31, 1992
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration filed by the Union under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Union requests reconsideration of the Authority's Order of November 22, 1991, which dismissed the Union's petition for review because the Union had failed to comply with prior deficiency Orders of the Authority. 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 the Order dismissing the petition. Accordingly, we will deny the motion for reconsideration.
On April 29, 1991, the Union filed its petition for review with the Authority. On May 14, 1991, the Authority issued an Order directing the Union to correct a deficiency in its petition. The Authority directed the Union to file an original and four copies of a statement addressing whether a concurrent unfair labor practice charge had been filed and, if so, to indicate under which procedure it chose to proceed. The Union was informed that failure to comply with the Order could result in dismissal of its petition. On June 19, 1991, the Authority received a signed certified mail return receipt card acknowledging receipt by the Union of the May 14 Order. To date, the Union has not filed a response to the May 14 Order and has not cured the deficiency.
On June 4, 1991, the Agency filed its Statement of Position (Statement). On June 26, 1991, the Union filed its response to the Agency's Statement with the Authority but failed to serve its response on the Agency's representative of record. On July 12, 1991, the Authority issued a second deficiency Order. The Authority again directed the Union to comply with the May 14 Order and further directed the Union to serve its response to the Agency's Statement on the Agency's representative of record. To date, the Union has not filed a response to the July 12 Order. The Authority has not received a signed return receipt indicating that the Union received the July 12 Order.
By Order of November 22, 1991, the Authority dismissed the Union's petition for the Union's failure to respond to the May 14 and July 12 Orders. On December 11, 1991, the Authority received a signed return receipt indicating that the Union had received the November 22 Order. All of the Authority's orders were mailed to the Union at the same address.
III. The Union's Motion for Reconsideration
The Union requests the Authority to reconsider its decision dismissing the Union's petition. The Union asserts that it "did not receive a copy of the May 14, 1991 or the July 12, 1991 Order." Motion at 2 (emphasis in original). The Union argues that as it "never received the Orders upon which the Authority's decision is based, it is impermissible for the Authority to dismiss the Union's Petition on the ground that the Union failed to respond to its Orders." Id.
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 find that the Union has not established the existence of extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of section 2429.17 that warrant reconsideration of the Authority's Order dismissing the petition.
As stated above, the Authority received a signed certified mail return receipt card acknowledging receipt by the Union of the Authority's May 14 Order. There is no assertion that the individual who signed the certified return receipt card was unauthorized to do so. Under these circumstances, we reject the Union's assertion that it