46:0090(9)AR - - AFGE, Local 2017 and Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Fort Gordon, GA - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v46 p90
[ v46 p90 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
46 FLRA No. 9
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ARMY SIGNAL CENTER
FORT GORDON, GEORGIA
(45 FLRA 817 (1992))
(45 FLRA 1182 (1992))
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
October 15, 1992
Before Chairman McKee and Member Talkin.(*)
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on the Union's request for reconsideration of our decision in 45 FLRA 817, request for reconsideration denied, 45 FLRA 1182. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's request.
We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's request.
II. The Decision in 45 FLRA 817 and the Order in 45 FLRA 1182
In 45 FLRA 817, we denied the Union's exceptions to the Arbitrator's award. The Arbitrator denied the Union's grievance that 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) and that the Agency failed to give appropriate weight to the grievant's military service, including his status as a disabled veteran. 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.
In 45 FLRA 1182, we rejected the Union's argument that our decision was contrary to applicable laws, rules, and regulations. We found that the Union's request for reconsideration was merely an attempt to relitigate the merits of our decision in 45 FLRA 817. Because the Union's request did not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the decision, we denied the request.
III. Request for Reconsideration
The Union contends that both our decision and order are deficient because they are contrary to law, specifically 5 U.S.C. §§ 2108, 3501, and 3502. According to the Union, 5 U.S.C. §§ 2108, 3501, and 3502 "dictate their own definitions, applications[,] meanings, uses, and purposes." Request for Reconsideration at 1. The Union argues that the definitions for "disabled veteran" and "preference eligible" found in 5 U.S.C. § 2108 should have been applied by the Agency to determine the grievant's rights as a civilian employee when the Agency conducted a RIF. The Union also argues that, by using the definitions of those terms found in the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3501 and 3502, instead of the definitions found in 5 U.S.C. § 2108, the Agency and the Arbitr