45:0883(82)AR - - Army Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia and NAGE Local R4-6 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v45 p883
[ v45 p883 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
45 FLRA No. 82
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(45 FLRA No. 38 (1992))
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
August 12, 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 45 FLRA No. 38 filed by the Union under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition to the request. Because the Union fails to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the Union's request.
II. Authority's Decision in 45 FLRA No. 38
In 45 FLRA No. 38, we construed the Union's arguments that the Arbitrator misinterpreted Article 10, Section 1, of the parties' collective bargaining agreement(1) as a contention that the award failed to draw its essence from the agreement. We rejected that contention, deciding as follows:
The Union has not shown that the Arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement is irrational, implausible, or otherwise deficient. As such, the Union has not shown that the award fails to draw its essence from the agreement.
45 FLRA No. 38, slip op. at 3. Citing Illinois Air National Guard, 182nd Tactical Air Support Group and The Association of Civilian Technicians, Illinois Chapter 34, 34 FLRA 591, 593-94 (1990) (Illinois Air National Guard), we also concluded that the Union had not demonstrated that the award was deficient based on the Arbitrator's failure to address specifically the portion of Article 10, Section 1, providing an overtime assignment preference to employees currently assigned to the duties at issue.(2)
III. Union's Request for Reconsideration
The Union asserts that the Authority improperly relied on Illinois Air National Guard "to support the Arbitrator's failure to address a key issue in the case." Request for Reconsideration at 3. Specifically, the Union contends that the Authority erroneously used that decision to support the Arbitrator's failure "to address the issue of the [A]gency's duty" under Article 10, Section 1, to make overtime assignments to "those employees currently assigned the job." Id. at 2.
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 Union fails to establish "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17.
The arguments presented by the Union in support of its request for reconsideration constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision in 45 FLRA No. 38, and an attempt to relitigate the merits of the case. As such, these arguments do not constitute extraordinary circumstanc