46:0890(79)AR - - DOL, Washington, DC and AFGE Local 12 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v46 p890
[ v46 p890 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
46 FLRA No. 79
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(46 FLRA No. 71 (1992))
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
December 8, 1992
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before us on a motion filed by the Union under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations seeking reconsideration of our order of November 10, 1992,(1) dismissing as untimely the Union's exceptions to the arbitration award involved in this case. The Agency did not file an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.
For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has not established that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of the Authority's order. Accordingly, we will deny the motion for reconsideration.
II. Authority's Order
By order dated November 10, 1992, the Authority determined that the Union's exceptions to the arbitration award involved in this case were untimely filed. The Authority stated that the award was served on the parties by mail on September 22, 1992, and, under sections 2425.1(b)(2) and 2429.22 (3) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the due date for exceptions was the close of business on October 26, 1992. As the Union's exceptions were filed on October 27, 1992, the Authority dismissed the exceptions as untimely. The Authority stated, in this connection, that the time limit for filing exceptions to an arbitration award may not be extended or waived.(4)
III. Motion for Reconsideration
The Union contends that reconsideration of the Authority's order is warranted because: (1) the exceptions were filed only 1 day late; (2) the case involves significant issues and "grave legal and factual errors on the part of the arbitrator"; and (3) the Agency will not be harmed if the Authority reviews the exceptions. Exceptions at 1. In addition, the Union claims that the Union's representative sought assistance in determining the due date for exceptions from an attorney in the Authority's Office of the General Counsel. According to the Union, its representative "was aided by [the] FLRA staffer in arriving at the filing date of October 27[.]" Id.
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 or order of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has not established that such extraordinary circumstances exist in this case.
It is undisputed in this case that the Arbitrator's award was served on the parties by mail on September 22, 1992, and the due date for exceptions was October 26, 1992. It also is undisputed that the Union's exceptions were not timely filed. As noted previously, the time limit for filing exceptions to arbitration awards may not be extended or waived by the Authority. See also U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings Area Office, Billings, Montana and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 478, 39 FLRA 238, 240 (1991) (Authority is "not empowered to take into account equitable considerations to waive the time limit for filing exceptions to arbitration awards."). As such, the fact that the exceptions were filed only 1 day late as well as the Union's arguments regarding the nature of the award provide no grounds for reconsidering the Authority's order dismissing the exceptions. Moreover, reliance on erroneous advice from an agent of the Authority does not provide grounds for reconsideration of the order. See id. ("parties dealing with the Federal Government are charged with knowledge of and are bound by statutes and lawfully promulgated regulations despite reliance to their detriment on incorrect information received from Government agents or employees.") (citations omitted).
We conclude that the Union's arguments do not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Authority's order dismissing the Union's exceptions. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's motion for reconsideration.
The Union's motion for reconsideration is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
1. Through administrative error, the order did not receive an FLRA decision number. By letter of December 1, 1992, the parties were notified that the order will be published as 46 FLRA No. 71.
2. 5 C.F.R. § 2425.1(b) provi