45:1182(117)AR - - AFGE Local 2017 and Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Fort Gordon, GA - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v45 p1182
[ v45 p1182 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
45 FLRA No. 117
Before Chairman McKee and Member Talkin.*/
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on a request for reconsideration of 45 FLRA 817 (1992) filed by the Union under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's request.
We conclude that the Union fails to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of our decision in 45 FLRA 817. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's request.
II. Arbitrator's Award and the Decision in 45 FLRA 817
As set forth in more detail in 45 FLRA 817, the grievance alleged that the Agency incorrectly evaluated the grievant's status in determining his rights as a civilian employee when the Agency conducted a reduction-in-force (RIF). The grievance alleged that the Agency failed to give appropriate weight to the grievant's military service, including his status as a disabled veteran. The Arbitrator denied the Union's grievance.
In 45 FLRA 817, we denied the Union's exceptions. We concluded that the Union's assertions that the Arbitrator was biased and that the award was not based on law and regulation provided no basis for finding the award deficient.
III. Positions of the Parties
The Union requests that the Authority reconsider its decision "because it is contrary to the stated laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the decisions rendered on 0-AR-2232 and the Grievant's 'Disabled Veterans' 'Preference Eligible' status." Request for Reconsideration at 1. In sum, the Union argues that the grievant is a preference eligible disabled veteran for the purpose of title 5 of the U.S. Code and that the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3501, 3502, which the Arbitrator relied on in his decision, "cannot be used to restrict, alter, withhold, withdraw, or provide authority to RIF a 'Preference Eligible' 'Disabled Veteran' as defined by 5 USC [§] 2108 for use of title 5." Id.
The Agency contends that the Union has not provided any extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the Authority's decision and, therefore, the Union's request should be denied.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of an Authority decision. We conclude that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of section 2429.17 to warrant reconsideration of our decision in 45 FLRA 817.
We reject the Union's argument that our decision is contrary to applicable laws, rules, and regulations. We find that the Union's request for reconsideration is merely an attempt to relitigate the merits of our